Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sekiya v. Rodgers

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

December 13, 2017

MIKKO T. SEKIYA, Plaintiff,
v.
MIKE ROGERS, NDA/FBI/FISA, MARK ZUCKERBERG, and FACEBOOK, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 2, filed September 14, 2017 (“Application”) and on Plaintiff's Complaint, Doc. 1, filed September 14, 2017.[1] For the reasons stated below, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff's Application and DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have 14 days from entry of this Order to file an amended complaint. Failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case without prejudice. Plaintiff shall, within 14 days of entry of this Order, show cause why the Court should not impose filing restrictions.

         Application to Proceed in forma pauperis

         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). “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 District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Plaintiff signed an affidavit stating he is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings and provided the following information: (i) Plaintiff is unemployed; (ii) Plaintiff's average monthly income is $0.00; (iii) Plaintiff's monthly expenses total $0.00; and (iv) Plaintiff owns no assets. The Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of this proceeding because he is unemployed and has no income.

         Dismissal of Proceedings In Forma Pauperis

         The statute governing proceedings in forma pauperis requires federal courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis proceeding that “is frivolous or malicious; ... fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; ... or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). “[P]ro se litigants are to be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 n.3 (10th Cir. 1991).

         Plaintiff alleges the following facts:

[Mike Rogers] is fully knowledgeabale of the so called investigation that is taking place.
. . . .
I Mikko T. Sekiya a United States Citizen has been having a 3 yr long harrassing by the FBI/NSA throught the FISA Agency I have become what they call a FISA 702 as an American I cannot become a FISA 702. I have asked a number of times for this to stop Mark Zuckerberg/Facebook has been going along with this unethical way of investigation that is being conducted.
. . . .
privacy act my 3rd 4th amendment has been violated for the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.