United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Complaint
and Request for Injunction, Doc. 1, filed October 23, 2018,
and on Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 2, filed October
to Proceed in forma pauperis
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.
Court will grant Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Plaintiff
signed an affidavit declaring that she is unable to pay the
costs of these proceedings and that the following information
is true: (i) her income amount expected next month is $1,
320.00; (ii) her total monthly expenses are $1, 300.00; (iii)
she has $43.00 in a bank account, and (iv) she is unemployed.
The Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing
fee because her monthly income exceeds her monthly expenses
by only $20.00 and she is unemployed.
of the Case
property is the subject of a foreclosure action in state
court. Plaintiff seeks to quiet title on the property, to
enjoin the state court from holding a hearing set for October
31, 2018, and to be awarded damages.
Court will dismiss Plaintiff's request to enjoin the
state court for lack of 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”). The Anti-Injunction Act prohibits
injunctions against state-court proceedings, with three
exceptions that do not apply in this case: “A court of
the United States may not grant an injunction to stay
proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized
by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its
jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its
judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283.
fails to state a claim for her quiet title action because she
does not set forth the nature and extent of her
estate. See N.M.S.A. § 42-6-2
(“The plaintiff must file his complaint [for a quiet
title action] . . . setting forth the nature and extent of
his estate and describing the premises as accurately as may
be”). Furthermore, “[d]amages are not recoverable
in a suit to quiet title.” Chavez v. Gomez,
1967-NMSC-011, ¶ 19, 77 N.M. 341, 346 (1967). The Court
will dismiss Plaintiffs quiet title action for failure to
state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
(“the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted”).
IS ORDERED that:
(i) Plaintiffs Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 2, filed October 23,
2018, is GRANTED.
(ii) This case is dismissed without ...