United States District Court, D. New Mexico
BILLY G. GRANGER, JR., Plaintiff,
WELLS FARGO, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, MARK SANCHEZ, DAVID MORANDA, and DAVID E. FINGER, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING THE CASE WITHOUT
MATTER comes before the Court on pro se
Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court
without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 3, filed January 23,
2018 (“Application”), and on Plaintiff's
Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Doc. 1, filed January 23, 2018 (“Complaint”). For
the reasons stated below, the Court will
GRANT Plaintiff's Application and
DISMISS this case without
prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Application to Proceed in forma
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).
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 stated: (i) his total monthly income is
$700.00 in disability; (ii) he is unemployed; and (iii) his
monthly expenses are approximately $6, 000.00. The Court
finds Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of these
proceedings because his monthly expenses exceed his low
monthly income. See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (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”).
filed his Complaint using the form “Civil Rights
Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” In the
section of the form Complaint that prompts Plaintiff for
information regarding jurisdiction, Plaintiff wrote:
prohibitions of protection 42(USC) Kleptocracy “rule by
thieves” ACLU-NM State Law Claim U.S.-E.U. Privacy
Shield # 00499461 Second State law claim 42(USC) Jabbari vs
Wells Fargo unthourized checking/fraud
unathourized opprutunity checking and savings fraud 42(USC)
Jabbari vs Wells Fargo 142, 000, 000.00 $ settelment March 3,
2018 Keller and Rohaback (206)-623-1900
Excessive Force/Denied First amendment/Identity theft 42(US)
“rule by thieves” [sic] Complaint at 1-2. In
response to the form Complaint's instructions to state
the background of the case, Plaintiff indicates that a camera
was implanted in his left eye “without consent via
anntenna chip in and around the neck (via monitores).”
[sic] Complaint at 2. Much of the rest of that Plaintiff has
written in the Complaint is unintelligible. Pages 7-41 of the
Complaint are various documents.
party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court,
Plaintiff bears the burden of alleging facts that support
jurisdiction. See Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980,
985 (10th Cir. 2013) (“Since federal courts are courts
of limited jurisdiction, we presume no jurisdiction exists
absent an adequate showing by the party invoking federal
jurisdiction”). Plaintiff's Complaint does not
contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for
the court's jurisdiction” as required by Rule
8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action”); Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp.,
434 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir.2006) (“[D]ismissals for
lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice because the
court, having determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the
action, is incapable of reaching a disposition on
the merits of the underlying claims.”).
1915 provides that the “officers of the court shall
issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in
[proceedings in forma pauperis]”). ...