Lenhardt v. Zuckerberg et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
URSULA LENHARDT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 25-4057-TC-GEB
)
MARK ZUCKERBERG, and )
FACEBOOK/META INC., )
)
Defendants. )
)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Ursula Lenhardt’s Motion to Proceed
Without Prepayment or Fees (“Motion”) (ECF No. 3, sealed). For the reasons outlined
below, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 3, sealed) is GRANTED.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a), the Court has discretion 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.”1 “Proceeding in
forma pauperis in a civil case ‘is a privilege, not a right-fundamental or otherwise.’”2
However, there is a “liberal policy” toward permitting proceedings in forma pauperis
“when necessary to ensure that the courts are available to all citizens, not just those who
1 Barnett ex rel. Barnett v. Nw. Sch., No. 00-2499-KHV, 2000 WL 1909625, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec.
26, 2000) (citing Cabrera v. Horgas, 173 F.3d 863, at *1 (10th Cir. 1999); Cross v. General Motors
Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983); and Buggs v. Riverside Hosp., No. 97-1088-WEB,
1997 WL 321289, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 9, 1997)).
2 Barnett, at *1 (quoting White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied,
526 U.S. 1008 (1999)).
Case 5:25-cv-04057-TC-GEB Document 11 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 2

2
can afford to pay.”3 When determining whether a party is eligible to file without
prepayment of the fee, the court reviews a party’s financial affidavit and compares her
monthly expenses with the monthly income disclosed therein.4 After careful review of
Plaintiff’s financial affidavit5 and comparing Plaintiff’s listed monthly income and
expenses, the Court finds she is financially unable to pay the filing fee.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Without
Prepayment or Fees (ECF No. 3, sealed) is GRANTED. Although service of process
would normally be undertaken by the clerk of court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), the clerk is directed to stay service of process pending the District
Court’s review of the Report and Recommendation filed simultaneously here.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 5th day of March 2026.
s/ Gwynne E. Birzer
GWYNNE E. BIRZER
United States Magistrate Judge
3 Alexander v. Wichita Hous. Auth., No. 07-1149-JTM, 2007 WL 2316902, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 9,
2007) (citing Yellen v. Cooper, 82 F.2d 1471 (10th Cir.1987)).
4 Id. (citing Patillo v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., No. 02-2162-JWL, 2002 WL 1162684, at *1 (D.
Kan. April. 15, 2002); Webb v. Cessna Aircraft, No. 00-2229-JWL, 2000 WL 1025575, at *1 (D.
Kan. July 17, 2000)).
5 ECF No. 3-1.
6 See Webb. v. Vratil, No. 12-2588-EFM, ECF No. 7 (D. Kan. Sept. 28, 2012) (withholding service
of process pending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and jurisdictional review).
Case 5:25-cv-04057-TC-GEB Document 11 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 2