Jasmine Nikole Claycomb v. Reno County, Kansas, Board of County Commissioners,...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JASMINE NIKOLE CLAYCOMB, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 25-1288-DDC-GEB ) RENO COUNTY, KANSAS, BOARD ) OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ) DALTON LEONARD, ) JOHNATHAN NUNNELLY, ) DAYTON GATES, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS BUT WITHHOLDING SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jasmine Nikole Claycomb’s s Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (ECF No. 3, sealed) and supporting Affidavit of Financial Status (ECF No. 5 sealed). For the reasons outlined below, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED but service of summons and complaint until further order of the Court.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court has discretion1 to authorize filing of a civil case “without prepayment of fees or security thereof, by a person who submits an affidavit that . . . the person is unable to pay such fees or give security thereof.” “Proceeding Barnett ex rel. Barnett v. Nw. Sch., No. 00-2499-KHV, 2000 WL 1909625, *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 26, 2000) (citing Cabrera v. Horgas, No. 98-4231, 173 F.3d 863, *1 (10th Cir. Apr. 23, 1999)). in forma pauperis in a civil case ‘is a privilege, not a right—fundamental or otherwise.’”2 The Court reviews the party’s financial affidavit and compares his or her monthly expenses with the monthly income disclosed therein, to determine whether a party is eligible to file without prepayment of the fee.3 The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and this Court have a liberal policy toward permitting proceedings in forma pauperis.4 After careful review of Plaintiff’s financial resources (ECF No. 5 sealed), and comparison of Plaintiff’s listed monthly income and listed monthly expenses, the Court finds she is financially unable to pay the filing fee.

However, the Court will not direct service of process on Defendants until it screens the complaint for merit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915€(2)(B).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED. The U.S. Marshals Service shall withhold service on Defendants until further order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 13th day of February, 2026.

s/ Gwynne E. Birzer GWYNNE E. BIRZER United States Magistrate Judge

2 Id. (quoting White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998)).

3 Alexander v. Wichita Hous. Auth., No. 07-1149-JTM, 2007 WL 2316902, *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 9, 2007) (citing Patillo v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., No. 02-2162-JWL, 2000 WL 1162684, *1) (D.

Kan. Apr. 15, 2002) and Webb v. Cessna Aircraft, No. 00-2229-JWL, 2000 WL 1025575, *1 (D.

Kan. July 17, 2000)).

4 Mitchell v. Deseret Health Care Facility, No. 13-1360-RDR, 2013 WL 5797609, *1 (D. Kan. Sept. 30, 2013) (citing, generally, Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471 (10th Cir. 1987)).