Hagar v. Phoenix Program, Inc.

Filing 2

ORDER entered by Judge Nanette Laughrey. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File In Forma Pauperis [Doc. # 1] is DENIED. (Kanies, Renea)

Download PDF
Hagar v. Phoenix Program, Inc. Doc. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION ANN ELAINE HAGAR Plaintiff, v. PHOENIX PROGRAM, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 07-4125-CV-C-NKL ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File In Forma Pauperis [Doc. # 1]. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion is denied. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a), this Court may authorize commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees. The statute specifically provides that a court "may authorize the commencement . . . of any suit . . . 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." 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). The district court follows a twostep process in considering whether the applicant should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. First, the Court must determine whether the applicant qualifies by economic status under 1915(a). Martin-Trigona v. Stewart, 691 F.2d 856, 857 (8th Cir. 1982). Second, the Court must determine whether the cause of action stated in the complaint is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2); see also Martin-Trigona, 691 F.2d at 857. 1 Case 2:07-cv-04125-NKL Document 2 Filed 07/31/2007 Page 1 of 2 Dockets.Justia.com The opportunity to proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege rather than a right, and should not be used to abuse the court's process. Williams v. McKenzie, 834 F.2d 152, 154 (8th Cir. 1987). Determining whether an applicant is sufficiently impoverished to qualify under 1915 rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Cross v. General Motors Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 980 (1984). A showing of poverty is sufficient if the applicant would be forced to give up the basic necessities of life if required to pay the costs of the lawsuit. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948); see also Local Rule 83.7. Plaintiff has provided the Court with a document titled "Affidavit of Financial Status," which details her financial resources. Plaintiff, however, failed to have this document notarized. The Court may not consider the information contained in a document that is not notarized. Therefore, the Court is unable to find that she satisfies Section 1915's poverty requirement and her Motion for Leave to File In Forma Pauperis is denied. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File In Forma Pauperis [Doc. # 1] is DENIED. s/ Nanette K. Laughrey NANETTE K. LAUGHREY United States District Judge Dated: July 31, 2007 Jefferson City, Missouri 2 Case 2:07-cv-04125-NKL Document 2 Filed 07/31/2007 Page 2 of 2

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?