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.

Sharp v. Grisham

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

December 10, 2019

TOMMY SHARP and NICK JOHNSON, Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, HECTOR BALDERAS, MAGGIE TOULOUSE-OLIVER, BRIAN S. COLON, TIM EICHENBERG, HOWIE MORALES, JOSEPH BADAL, WENDY TREVISANI, MICHAEL S. SANCHEZ, OLIVIA PADILLA-JACKSON, ASHLEY LEACH, MARCOS B. TRUJILLO, PAUL CASSIDY, NEW MEXICO BOARD OF FINANCE, and THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

          MARTHA VÁZQUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' RICO Act Complaint, Doc. 1, filed October 21, 2019 (“Complaint”), on Plaintiffs” Applications to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Docs. 4-5, filed October 21, 2019 (“Applications”), and on Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Writ of Mandamus, Doc. 6, filed October 21, 2019.

         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 setting forth all assets that the person possesses and stating 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 grants Plaintiff Johnson's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Plaintiff signed an affidavit stating that he is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings and provided the following information: (i) Plaintiff's monthly income is $824.00; (ii) Plaintiff is unemployed; (iii) Plaintiff's monthly expenses total $1, 036.00; and (iv) Plaintiff has $500.00 in cash and $500.00 in a bank account. The Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of this proceeding because his monthly expenses exceed his monthly income, he is unemployed, and he has very little money in cash and in a bank account.

         The Court grants Plaintiff Sharp's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Plaintiff signed an affidavit stating that he is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings and provided the following information: (i) Plaintiff's monthly income is $296.00; (ii) Plaintiff is unemployed; (iii) Plaintiff's monthly expenses total $390.00; and (iv) Plaintiff has $300.00 in cash and $130.00 in a bank account. The Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of this proceeding because his monthly expenses exceed his monthly income, he is unemployed, and he has very little money in cash and in a bank account.

         Dismissal of Proceedings In Forma Pauperis

         Plaintiffs are 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.”).

The Complaint states:
Be it known by these presents that the named above elected servants of the State of New Mexico and various district, county, and municipal subsidiaries, functionaries, and minions of the same, are hereby attested against and charged with sundry crimes and misdemeanors against We the People of the United States of America and the citizens of the State of New Mexico.

         Complaint at 2. Plaintiffs “formally accuse” and “charge” Defendants with ...


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.