Wilson v. KLD Properties et al

Filing 6

ORDER denying 1 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 2 emergency motion for order. The Clerk's Office is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. Signed on 2/1/2018 by District Judge Roseann Ketchmark. (Stout, Courtney)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KWANZA WILSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
KLD PROPERTIES, KEN DAVIS,
)
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR; AND
)
FOSTER HOUSE,
)
Defendants.
)
ORDER

No. 6:18-03026-CV-RK

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to File Action without Payment of
Fees (doc. 1) and Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion and Request to Stay the Proceedings in District
Court (doc. 2). After careful review, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is
DENIED and the action is DISMISSED. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion and Request
to Stay the Proceedings in District Court is DENIED as moot.
I.

Request to Proceed without Payment of Fees
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) authorizes the Court to allow indigent persons to commence a

civil action without the prepayment of costs. This is typically referred to as proceeding “in
forma pauperis.” However, “[t]he opportunity to proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a
right.” Weaver v. Pung, 925 F.2d 1097, 1099 n.4 (8th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). When
presented with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court first determines whether the
plaintiff satisfies the economic eligibility requirements. Local Rule 83.7(a) provides that the
standard for determining in forma pauperis status is whether the requirement to pay the costs of
the lawsuit would cause the applicant to be forced to give up the basic necessities of life. If the
applicant meets the economic eligibility requirements, the Court then determines whether the
applicant’s complaint is “frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Additionally, “[i]f the Court determines at any time that it lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3).

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis with Affidavit of Financial Status in
Support appears to demonstrate that Plaintiff meets the economic eligibility requirements.
(Doc. 1.) However upon review, the case must be dismissed because the Complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted over which this Court would have subject matter
jurisdiction.
II.

Plaintiff’s Complaint
Plaintiff’s action appears to seek relief for a number of alleged crimes and civil causes of

action. In the Complaint, Plaintiff lists as the basis for jurisdiction – federal question. However,
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not list any specific federal statutes, federal treaties, and/or provisions
of the United States Constitution that are at issue in this case. As best as can be discerned,
Plaintiff’s only cause of action that may give the Court jurisdiction over this case is Plaintiff’s
alleged civil rights violation which the Court construes as a claim under the Fair Housing Act.
Therefore, the Court looks to see if Plaintiff has stated a claim for which relief can be granted
under the Fair Housing Act.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) sets forth that for a complaint to state a claim, the
pleading must contain: “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief[.]” A complaint must provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Because
Plaintiff is pro se, Plaintiff’s pleadings are construed liberally. Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d
1127, 1129 (8th Cir. 1996). However, this standard does not excuse pro se complaints from
alleging “sufficient facts to support the claims advanced.” Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914
(8th Cir. 2004).
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges “I have not been given the same opportunity to live
at my residents [sic][.]” Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §3604, Plaintiff does not allege that Plaintiff
i s being treated differently because of “race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national
origin.” Therefore, Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled a cause of action under the Fair Housing
Act. Because the Court cannot identify any other cognizable claim arising under federal law in
the Complaint, the Court must dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure12(h)(3).

2

III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to File Action Without Payment of Fees

(doc. 1) is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion
and Request to Stay the Proceedings in District Court (doc. 2) is DENIED as moot.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Roseann A. Ketchmark
ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATED: February 1, 2018

1

Even if Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion was not denied as moot, the Court would have denied
that motion on the merits. In the Emergency Motion, Plaintiff requests the Court to stay proceedings
in the district court; however, Plaintiff does not identify the proceedings Plaintiff wishes be stayed or
for what period of time. Second, Plaintiff provides no legal authority regarding housing list
placement nor does Plaintiff provide sufficient identification or description of the housing list Plaintiff
references in the motion. Third, Plaintiff provides no legal authority to support the claim for relief
from payment of rent. Last, to the extent Plaintiff is seeking relief from a state court writ of execution
which requires Plaintiff vacate the current residence, Plaintiff does not state how this Court has
jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.

3