Coffman v. Pratt Community College et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 5/2/18. Mailed to pro se party Dustin D. Coffman by regular mail. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DUSTIN D. COFFMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
PRATT COMMUNITY COLLEGE, et al., )
)
Defendant.
)
)

Case No. 18-4023-SAC-KGG

MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON
MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES
In conjunction with his federal court Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff Dustin D.
Coffman has also filed a short form Application to Proceed Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (“IFP application,” Doc. 4, sealed) with a supporting financial
affidavit (Doc. 5, sealed). After review of Plaintiff’s motion, as well as the
Complaint, the Court GRANTS the IFP application.
ANALYSIS
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a federal court may authorize commencement of
an action without prepayment of fees, costs, etc., by a person who lacks financial
means. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “Proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil case ‘is a
privilege, not a right – fundamental or otherwise.’” Barnett v. Northwest School,

1 

No. 00-2499, 2000 WL 1909625, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 26, 2000) (quoting White v.
Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998)). The decision to grant or deny in
forma pauperis status lies within the sound discretion of the court. Cabrera v.
Horgas, No. 98-4231, 1999 WL 241783, at *1 (10th Cir. Apr. 23, 1999).
There is a liberal policy toward permitting proceedings in forma pauperis
when necessary to ensure that the courts are available to all citizens, not just those
who can afford to pay. See generally, Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471 (10th Cir.
1987). In construing the application and affidavit, courts generally seek to
compare an applicant’s monthly expenses to monthly income. See Patillo v. N.
Am. Van Lines, Inc., No. 02-2162, 2002 WL 1162684, at *1 (D.Kan. Apr. 15,
2002); Webb v. Cessna Aircraft, No. 00-2229, 2000 WL 1025575, at *1 (D.Kan.
July 17, 2000) (denying motion because “Plaintiff is employed, with monthly
income exceeding her monthly expenses by approximately $600.00”).
In the supporting financial affidavit, Plaintiff indicates he 43 and single with
no dependents. (Doc. 5, sealed, at 1-2.) He does not indicate any current
employment. (Id., at 2.) He does own real property, from which he makes a
modest annual income. (Id., at 3.) He owns a modest automobile outright, with
little residual value. (Id., at 4.) He lists a small amount received in the form of
“other gov’t sources (example Medicaid benefits).” (Id.) Plaintiff lists no cash on
hand. (Id.) He lists typical monthly expenses, including a small amount for rent as
2 

well as groceries, utilities, and car insurance. (Id., at 5.) He also has a significant
amount of student debt. (Id.) Although Plaintiff does not state his required
monthly payment on his student loans, the Court anticipates it is sizeable.
Considering the information contained in his financial affidavit, the Court
finds that Plaintiff has established that his access to the Court would be
significantly limited absent the ability to file this action without payment of fees
and costs. The Court thus GRANTS Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Doc. 4, sealed.)

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for IFP status (Doc.
4) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 2nd day of May, 2018.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE

KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge

3