Thornton et al v. Lund et al

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 8/21/06 granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; marshals ordered to serve defendants . (cc: plaintiffs) (Wesolek, Marie)

Download PDF
Thornton et al v. Lund et al Doc. 4 Case 2:06-cv-00845-LA Filed 08/21/2006 Page 1 of 3 Document 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN LATANGA THORNTON & SHERRIE THORNTON, Plaintiffs, v. LYNDA LUND, et. al., Defendants. Case No. 06C0845 DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs Latanga Thornton and Sherrie Thornton have filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against probation/parole agents Lynda Lund, Darryl Bucholtz, Kristen Swangstu, and Milwaukee Police Officer John Arredono. Plaintiffs assert that defendants unlawfully entered and searched their properties without valid search warrants. Ordinarily, a plaintiff must pay a statutory filing fee of $350 to bring an action in federal court. 28 U.S.C. 1914(a). Plaintiffs, however, have each requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. Section 1915 is meant to ensure indigent litigants meaningful access to federal courts, Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989), and applies to both nonprisoner plaintiffs and to plaintiffs who are incarcerated, Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 275-77 (6th Cir. 1997) ("[T]he only logical interpretation of the statute is that nonprisoners have the option to proceed in forma pauperis under 1915(a)."). Here, the heightened requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act do not apply. See West v. Macht, 986 F.Supp. 1141, (W.D. Wis. 1997). Under 1915, an indigent party may Case 2:06-cv-00845-LA Filed 08/21/2006 Page 2 of 3 Document 4 commence a federal court action, without paying required costs and fees, upon submission of an affidavit asserting inability "to pay such fees or give security therefor" and stating "the nature of the action, defense or appeal and the affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress." 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). Plaintiffs have filed the required affidavits of indigence. Upon review of those affidavits, the court is satisfied that plaintiffs meet the poverty requirements of 28 U.S.C. 1915. Plaintiff Latanga Thornton supports herself and her four minor children on an income of $840 per month, of which $724 goes to fixed expenses. Plaintiff Sherrie Thornton supports herself and her three minor children on an income of $1,590 per month, of which $1,354 goes to fixed expenses. Additionally, plaintiffs have stated the nature of this 1983 action and asserted their belief that they are entitled to redress. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Latanga Thornton's request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sherrie Thornton's request to process in forma pauperis is GRANTED. IT IS ADDITIONALLY ORDERED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2), that the U.S. Marshals Service shall serve a copy of the complaint, a waiver of service form and/or the summons, and this order upon defendants. Plaintiff is advised that Congress requires the U.S. Marshals Service to charge for making or attempting such service. 28 U.S.C. 1921(b). The current fee for waiver-of-service packages is $8 per item. 28 C.F.R. 0.114(a)(2). Although Congress requires the court to order service by the U.S. Marshals Service precisely because in forma pauperis plaintiffs are indigent, it has not 2 Case 2:06-cv-00845-LA Filed 08/21/2006 Page 3 of 3 Document 4 made any provision for these fees to be waived either by the court or by the U.S. Marshals Service. Plaintif fs, however, should provide defendants or their counsel with copies of all future motions or papers filed by the plaintiff in this action. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 21 day of August, 2006. /s_____________________________ LYNN ADELMAN District Judge 3

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?