Green v. Kansas Department for Children and Families et al
ORDER regarding 3 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 9/20/2017.Mailed to pro se party by regular and certified mail (srj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MONICA A. GREEN,
KANSAS DEPARTMENT FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al.
Case No. 17-2551-JAR
The pro se plaintiff, Monica A. Green, has filed a motion seeking to commence
and proceed with this case without prepayment of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915
(“IFP application”) (ECF No. 3), along with an accompanying affidavit of financial
status. Plaintiff has also filed a motion asking the court to appoint counsel to represent
her in this case (ECF No. 4).
The court has reviewed the record and finds that
supplementation of the documents is necessary.
As an initial matter, the court observes that plaintiff’s filings thus far—i.e.,
plaintiff’s complaint, IFP application, financial affidavit, and motion for appointment of
counsel—are unsigned. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) provides that “[e]very
pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed … by a party personally if the
party is unrepresented.” District of Kansas Local Rule 5.1(b) similarly provides that
“every pleading, motion, or other paper filed by a party not represented by an attorney
must bear the genuine signature of the pro se party.”
In addition to failing to comply with the above signature requirements, the
financial affidavit submitted in support of plaintiff’s IFP application is otherwise
incomplete. Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows the court to
authorize the commencement of a civil action “without prepayment of fees or security
therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that . . . the person is unable to pay such
fees or give security therefor.”1 To succeed on a motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
the movant must show a financial inability to pay the required filing fees.2
“‘[P]roceeding in forma pauperis in a civil case is a privilege, not a right—fundamental
or otherwise.’”3 The decision to grant or deny in forma pauperis status under section
1915 lies within the “wide discretion” of the trial court.4
In section III.D of plaintiff’s form financial affidavit, plaintiff checked “yes” next
to various sources of income, indicating she has received money from these sources in
the last 12 months. Plaintiff, however, fails to provide the amount of money received
from each of these sources. Additionally, it’s unclear whether plaintiff is currently
In section II.A, plaintiff checked “no” to indicate she is not currently
employed, but proceeded to provide information with respect to an employer when
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Lister v. Dept. of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005); United States
v. Garcia, 164 Fed. App’x 785, 786 n. 1 (10th Cir. Jan. 26, 2006).
Green v. Suthers, No. 99-1447, 208 F.3d 226 (table), 2000 WL 309268, at *2
(10th Cir. Mar. 27, 2000) (quoting White v. Colo., 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998)).
Garcia, 164 Fed. App’x at 786 n.1. See also Lister, 408 F.3d at 1312 (“[W]e
review the district court’s denial of IFP status for an abuse of discretion.”).
directed to provide such information “if currently employed.” The court is left unable to
make a determination that the waiver of court costs and fees is justified.
Plaintiff is directed to provide the clerk’s office with signed versions of her
complaint, IFP application, and motion for appointment of counsel by September 29,
2017. Plaintiff is cautioned that if she fails to comply with this order, the court will strike
the unsigned papers.5
Plaintiff is further ordered to file a supplemental financial affidavit by September
29, 2017. The supplemental affidavit should include the amount of each of plaintiff’s
sources of income and clarify whether plaintiff is currently employed. The supplemental
affidavit should also be signed.
A copy of this order shall be mailed to plaintiff by certified and regular mail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated September 20, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ James P. O’Hara
James P. O’Hara
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) provides that “[t]he court must strike an unsigned paper
unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?