United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DKT. NO. 2) AND SCREENING
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.
plaintiff, who is proceeding without a lawyer, filed this
complaint on February 14, 2017. Dkt. No. 1. Along with the
complaint, the plaintiff filed two notice of right to sue
letters from the EEOC dated December 13, 2016, and a motion
asking the court to allow him to proceed without paying the
filing fee. Dkt. No. 2. The court will grant the
plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis
and will allow his claims to proceed.
SCREENING OF THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
court may allow a litigant to proceed without prepayment of
the filing fees if two conditions are met: (1) the litigant
is unable to pay the filing fee; and (2) the case is not
frivolous nor malicious, does not fail to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, and does not seek monetary
relief against a defendant that is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. §§1915(a) and (e)(2).
request to proceed without paying the filing fee, the
plaintiff states that he has a job, that he is not married,
and that he financially supports one minor dependent. Dkt.
No. 2, at 1. He receives $2, 240 per month in income from his
employer Veolia. Id. at 2. He owns a car that he
values at $4, 500. Id. at 3. He lists no additional
property or assets. The plaintiff states that his total
monthly expenses include $615 in rent, $200 in child support,
and $1, 680 in other household expenses. Id. Based
on the information contained in the plaintiff's
application, the court concludes that the plaintiff is unable
to pay the filing fees and costs associated with this action,
so the plaintiff has met the financial requirements of
1915(e)(2)(B) requires a court to dismiss a case at any time
if the court determines that it “(i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” Thus,
district courts “screen” complaints filed by
self-represented plaintiffs who request relief from the
filing fee, to determine whether they must dismiss complaints
under these standards.
complaint is frivolous, for purposes of
§1915(e)(2)(B)(i), if “it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). The court may
dismiss a case as frivolous if it is based on an
“indisputably meritless legal theory” or where
the factual contentions are “clearly baseless.”
Id. at 32 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
327). The standards for deciding whether to dismiss a case
for failure to state a claim under §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
are the same as those for reviewing claims under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). DeWalt v. Carter, 224
F.3d 607, 611-12 (7th Cir. 2000). To survive dismissal, the
complaint must contain enough “[f]actual allegations .
. . to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007). Although a complaint need not contain
“detailed factual allegations, ” a complaint
“that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or
‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555). “In evaluating whether a plaintiff's
complaint fails to state a claim, a court must take the
plaintiff's factual allegations as true and draw all
reasonable inferences in his favor.” DeWalt,
224 F.3d at 612. The court must liberally construe a pro
se plaintiff's allegations, no matter how
“inartfully pleaded.” Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
the complaint liberally, the court finds that the
plaintiff's complaint contains sufficient factual
allegations to state employment discrimination claims against
both defendants on the basis of race and age under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et
seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967, 29 U.S.C. §621 et seq. See Bennett v.
Schmidt, 153 F.3d 516, 518 (7th Cir. 1998) (to state a
race discrimination claim, “‘I was turned down
for a job because of my race' is all a complaint has to
say.”). For that reason, the court finds that the
complaint is not frivolous, and will grant the
plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
court GRANTS the plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. The court ORDERS that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(d) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, the
United States Marshals Service shall serve a copy of the
complaint, a waiver of service form and/or the summons, and
this order on defendants Nissan Staffing Continuum, Inc. and
Buyseasons. Even though the court has permitted the plaintiff
to proceed in forma pauperis in this case, the
plaintiff remains responsible for the cost of serving the
complaint on the defendants. The court advises the plaintiff
that Congress requires the U.S. Marshals Service to charge
for making or attempting to make such service. 28 U.S.C.
§1921. The current fee for waiver-of-service packages is
$8.00 per item. The full fee schedule appears in Revision to
United States Marshals Service Fees for Services.
See 28 C.F.R. §0.114(a)(2) and (a)(3). Although