Sullivan v. Pacheco et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
JACK SULLIVAN, )
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 2:26-cv-04021-WJE
)
CARMEN PACHECO and SERGIO
JIMENEZ,
)
)
)
Defendants. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Jack Sullivan, pro se, has requested leave to proceed with his Complaint without
payment of the filing fee, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and submitted a financial affidavit in
support. (Doc. 1). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that Mr. Sullivan’s motion
be denied and the case be dismissed.
I. Legal Standard
Section 1915(a)(1) states that the Court may authorize the continuation of any suit without
prepayment of fees or costs by a person who submits an affidavit that he is unable to pay such fees
or costs. In weighing the application, the Court is guided by Local Rule 83.7, which states that the
court fees and costs should not “cause the applicant to give up the basic necessities of life.”
Upon the determination of the applicant’s ability to pay the requisite fee, the Court must
review the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Section 1915(e)(2)(B) states:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the
court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that—
(B) the action or appeal—
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
Case 2:26-cv-04021-SRB Document 2 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 3

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). While a pro se pleading is to be liberally construed, it still must allege
some facts, which if proven true, would entitle the plaintiff to some specific legal remedy against
the named defendant(s), based on some established rule of law. Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914
(8th Cir. 2004).
II. Discussion
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s affidavit of financial status and finds that he is qualified
for in forma pauperis status based on economic need. However, applying 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and Local Rule 83.7 to the case at hand, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
Mr. Sullivan’s Complaint contains three paragraphs. The first contains the text of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The second states, in its entirety, “Both Defendants delayed the proceedings, in violation
of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (Doc. 1-1). It then states that the amount in controversy is more than $75,000.
(Id.). These paragraphs do not set out any facts whatsoever. The Complaint does not identify the
defendants anywhere other than including their names in the case caption. It does not contain any
facts describing how Mr. Sullivan has been harmed. It makes reference to “the proceedings” but
does not elaborate on what those proceedings are or how the defendants delayed them. (Id.).
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, the Complaint must still allege some facts
which, if proven true, would entitle the plaintiff to some legal remedy. Stone, 364 F.3d at 914. Even
construing Mr. Sullivan’s Complaint liberally, it is devoid of facts and fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the District Judge,
Case 2:26-cv-04021-SRB Document 2 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 3

after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying Mr.
Sullivan’s motion and dismissing this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Objections to this report may be filed with the District Judge within fourteen days of receipt
of a copy of the report. A failure to file and serve objections by this date shall bar an attack on
appeal of the factual findings in the Report and Recommendation which are accepted or adopted
by the District Judge, except on the grounds of plain error or manifest injustice.
Dated this 27th day of January, 2026, at Jefferson City, Missouri.
Willie J. Epps, Jr.
Willie J. Epps, Jr.
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:26-cv-04021-SRB Document 2 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 3