United States District Court, D. New Mexico
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED
MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs, Doc. 4, filed October 9, 2019.
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). “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 grants 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 spouse's
monthly income is $3, 000.00; (iii) Plaintiff's
spouse's monthly expenses total $3, 666.67; and (iv)
Plaintiff has no cash and no money in bank accounts; his
spouse has $1, 000.00 in a bank account. The Court finds that
Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of this proceeding
because his and his spouse's monthly expenses exceed
their monthly income.
filed his Complaint on behalf of himself and "MDC
Medical Patients & PSU Patients." Doc. 1 at 1, filed
October 1, 2019. The Court notifies Plaintiff that a
"litigant may bring his own claims to federal court
without counsel, but not the claims of others."
Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d
1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2000).
On (date) 2017-Current, at (place) Albuquerque Metro
Detention Center . . . While in custody and Under a Clinical
Supervision Hold in PAC 2 I was forced to take Seroquel in
which I informed the Doctors I was allergic to, stating that
I was then and still on Bupropion in which they said they did
not have and the Dr then Stated that "I will take the
Seroquel and I will like it" when I refused she put me
on suicide watch for being suicidal because I did not follow
her orders. After giving In and following her orders and
taking several large doses of Seroquel while in Jail on more
then on occasion in which every single time I did inform
every single medical and PSU Staff Member that I am allergic
to Seroquel they forced me to take it
Complaint at 4.
in forma pauperis
is proceeding in forma pauperis. The statute
governing proceedings in forma pauperis states
"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." 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); see also Webb v. Caldwell, 640 Fed.Appx.
800, 802 (10th Cir. 2016) ("We have held that a pro se
complaint filed under a grant of ifp can be
dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state
a claim . . . only where it is obvious that the plaintiff
cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be
futile to give him an opportunity to amend").
Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendant Metro
Detention Center because it is not a separate suable entity.
“Generally, governmental sub-units are not separate
suable entities that may be sued under § 1983.”
Hinton v. Dennis, 362 Fed.Appx. 904, 907 (10th Cir.
2010) (citing Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424, 444
(10th Cir. 1985) (holding that City and County of Denver
would remain as a ...