Paolucci v. Render, Kamas Law Firm and all partners from 1995 to the present

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk's office shall proceed to issue summons in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 7/31/2012.Mailed to pro se party Barbara Paolucci by regular mail (df) (aa) - pdf added. Modified on 8/2/2012 to change document type to "Opinion" (cs).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
BARBARA PAOLUCCI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RENDER, KAMAS LAW FIRM, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-1253-MLB-KGG

ORDER ON IFP STATUS
Plaintiff Barbara Paolucci filed a federal court Complaint based on diversity
jurisdiction alleging legal malpractice against the Defendants resulting from
representation she allegedly received in a class action lawsuit.1 In conjunction with
her Complaint, Plaintiff also filed a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP
Application, Doc. 1).2
1

Plaintiff states that her legal malpractice lawsuit was initially filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, but that she “lost a motion to dismiss based on
long arm jurisdiction,” which was subsequently upheld on appeal. (Doc. 2, at 3.) She
contends that she has “been advised that this is the venue [she] need[s] to persue [sic]”
and that she intends to find counsel. (Id., at 2, 4.)
2

The Court notes that Plaintiff has used the IFP Application and Complaint forms
from the United States District Court for Southern District of New York. (Doc. 1.) While
the IFP form does not require as much information as that used by the District of Kansas,
the Court is satisfied Plaintiff has provided sufficient information for a determination of
her IFP status. In the interest of judicial economy, the Court will not require Plaintiff to
file an application using the appropriate form from the District of Kansas. Plaintiff is
instructed that any subsequent filings made by her in this matter, pro se, will need to use
the appropriate case number, caption, and form (if any) from the District of Kansas.

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). In so doing, the court considers the affidavit of
financial status included with the application. See id.
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”).
According to her IFP Application, Plaintiff is unemployed and has not
worked since 1990 “due to disability.” (Doc. 1, at 1.) It appears that her only
income comes in the form of monthly Social Security disability benefits and food
stamps. (Id., at 1-2.) She pays a small amount in monthly rent, which she
indicates is “subsidized by a section 8 voucher.” (Id., at 2.) While she does have a

2

certain amount of cash on hand,3 she also states that she has “high out of pocket
medical expenses due to having Lupus, Rheumatoid & Psoriatic Arthritis,
Sjogrens, Spinal Stenosis, and more.” (Id.)
Considering all of the information contained in the financial affidavit, the
Court finds that Plaintiff has established that her access to the Courts would be
severely inhibited absent a finding of IFP status. The Court therefore GRANTS
Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directs that this case be filed
without payment of a filing fee.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (Doc. 1) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s office shall proceed to issue
summons in this case.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 31st day of July, 2012.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE

KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge

3

Plaintiff’s Complaint refers to significant financial investments, which were at
issue in the underlying class action lawsuit. (See generally Doc. 2.) She also refers to an
automobile she owned as well as a home (co-op) she attempted to buy. While amounts
and values involved raise some questions regarding her financial situation, it appears that
all of these assets have been lost and their value are being sought as damages. (Id.)
3