Channon v. Tavangar et al

Filing 5

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen granting #3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (KBM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MATTHEW J. CHANNON,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 18cv0596 KBM

JEFF TAVANGAR,
SHELLEY BACA,
JENNIFER IRELAND,
ARMADA GROUP, INC,
NATALIE GANN, and
TP-LINK RESEARCH AMERICA CORPORATION,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 3, filed June 26, 2018 (“Application”). For the
reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Application.
The statute for proceedings in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), provides that the
Court may authorize the commencement of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person who
submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets the person possesses and that the
person is unable to pay such fees.
When a district court receives an application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, it should examine the papers and determine if the requirements of
[28 U.S.C.] § 1915(a) are satisfied. If they are, leave should be granted.
Thereafter, if the court finds that the allegations of poverty are untrue or that the
action is frivolous or malicious, it may dismiss the case[.]
Menefee v. Werholtz, 368 Fed.Appx. 879, 884 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d
58, 60 (10th Cir. 1962). ). “[A]n application to proceed in forma pauperis should be evaluated
in light of the applicant's present financial status.” Scherer v. Kansas, 263 Fed.Appx. 667, 669

(10th Cir. 2008) (citing Holmes v. Hardy, 852 F.2d 151, 153 (5th Cir.1988)). “The statute
[allowing a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis ] was intended for the benefit of those too poor
to pay or give security for costs....” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 344
(1948). While a litigant need not be “absolutely destitute,” “an affidavit is sufficient which
states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to
provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339.
The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff
signed an affidavit stating he is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings and provided the
following information: (i) Plaintiff’s average monthly income during the past 12 months was
2,950.00, but his expected income next month is $0.00;1 (ii) Plaintiff’s monthly expenses total
$3,720.00; (iii) Plaintiff is unemployed and is “currently out on supervised release pending a
petition to the US Supreme Court regarding federal convictions.” The Court finds Plaintiff is
unable to pay the costs of these proceedings because he is unemployed and expects no income
next month.
Section 1915 provides that the “officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and
perform all duties in [proceedings in forma pauperis]”. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Rule 4 provides
that:
At the plaintiff’s request, the court may order that service be made by a United
States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court.
The court must so order if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. § 1916.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).

The Court disregards Plaintiff’s employment history that indicates he was/will be employed by
MyGini, Inc., from “8/2018 to 10/2018” with gross monthly pay of “$15000,” because it appears
to contain typographical errors. Application at 2.
1

2

The Court will order service of Summons and Complaint on the two corporate
Defendants but will not order service on the individual Defendants at this time because Plaintiff
has not provided the individual Defendants’ addresses. The Court will order service if Plaintiff
provides the Court with the individual Defendants’ addresses.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 3, filed June 26, 2018, is GRANTED.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the Clerk issue notice and waiver of service forms, with
copies of the Complaint, Doc. 1, and this Order to:
Armada Group, Inc.
325 Soquel Avenue
Santa Cruz, California 95062
and
TP-LINK Research America Corporation
245 Charcot Avenue
San Jose, California 95130.

______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3