United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, SCREENING COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING FURTHER
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief United States District Judge.
before the Court are Plaintiff Christina Ricks'
Complaint, [Filing No. 1], and Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis, [Filing No. 2].
This Order addresses Ms. Ricks' Motion, screens her
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and
directs further proceedings.
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
U.S.C. § 1915(a) permits the Court to authorize a
plaintiff to file a lawsuit “without prepayment of
fees” if the plaintiff “submits an
affidavit” demonstrating that she lacks the assets to
pay the filing fee at this time. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Ms. Ricks' Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, , meets this standard and is therefore
GRANTED. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Court notes that, while in forma pauperis status
allows the plaintiff to proceed without pre-payment
of the filing fee, the plaintiff remains liable for the full
fee. Robbins v. Switzer, 104 F.3d 895, 898 (7th Cir.
1997) (Every in forma pauperis litigant is liable
for the filing fee; “all [18 U.S.C.] § 1915(a)
does for any litigant is excuse the pre-payment of
fees”) (emphasis in original). The Court does not have
the authority to waive the filing fee, and it remains due
despite plaintiff's in forma pauperis status.
Fiorito v. Samuels, 2016 WL 3636968, *2 (C.D. Ill.
2016) (“The Court does not have the authority to waive
a filing fee”); McDaniel v. Meisner, 2015 WL
4773135, *5 (E.D. Wis. 2015) (same principle). The filing fee
for in forma pauperis litigants is $350.
See USDC Fee Schedule at
(stating that the $400 filing fee includes a $50
administrative fee, but that the administrative fee
“does not apply to…persons granted in forma
pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915”).
Immediate payment is not required; however, the $350 balance
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court shall dismiss a
case brought by a plaintiff proceeding in forma
pauperis “at any time if the court determines that
. . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious; . . . fails
to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or . . .
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.” In determining whether a complaint states
a claim, the Court applies the same standard as when
addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463
F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive dismissal:
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Complaint, Ms. Ricks alleges that she was employed by People
Ready Staffing Agency (“People Ready”),
under the supervision of Tessa Wetherald and Shamra Terry,
and was assigned to work at Cummins Engine Company
(“Cummins”). [Filing No. 1 at
2.] According to Ms. Ricks, Ms. Wetherald and Ms. Terry
told her that she would be making $13 per hour, directed her
to lie on her application by not listing a prior felony
conviction, and told her that they would bypass her drug
screening. [Filing No. 1 at 2.] During her first two
weeks of employment, Ms. Ricks did not receive a paycheck
stub until she complained to People Ready staff. [Filing
No. 1 at 2.] Ms. Ricks alleges that, when she finally
received her paycheck stub, it showed that she was only being
paid $12 per hour. [Filing No. 1 at 2.] Ms. Ricks
alleges that the staff at People Ready told her that
“there was a mistake about the hourly pay” and
she “was accidentally told” that she would be
paid $13 per hour. [Filing No. ...