Aich v. State of Kansas

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JESSE JOSEPH AICH,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 26-3072-JWL
STATE OF KANSAS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil action. 	Plaintiff is in custody at the Reno County
Correctional Facility in Hutchinson, Kansas. Plaintiff claims that he is bringing this action under
the False Claims Act and named the State of Kansas as the sole defendant. 1 (Doc. 1, at 1.) This
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 6).
On March 30, 2026, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 4) (“M&O”)
denying Plaintiff’s first motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, finding that Plaintiff is
subject to the “three-strikes” provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 	The Court examined the
Complaint and attachments and found no showing of imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The Court also found that the claims appear to be frivolous. 	The Court granted Plaintiff until
April 30, 2026, to submit the $405.00 filing fee.
Plaintiff has filed a second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and an Amended
Complaint. (Docs. 6, 8.) Plaintiff also filed a response (Doc. 5) suggesting that the filing fee for
this case is somehow taken care of through the Court’s yearly budget and that requiring him to pay
1 Plaintiff filed a one-page document titled “Amended Complaint 1) to Add Defendant 2) to Add Relief.” (Doc. 8.)
He seeks to add the 27th Judicial District as a defendant and seeks to add a request to dismiss his state criminal cases
with extreme prejudice.
Case 5:26-cv-03072-JWL Document 9 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 2

2
his filing fee constitutes double jeopardy. 	The Court cited the statutory authority for requiring
Plaintiff to submit the filing fee—28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Tenth Circuit “has already upheld the
constitutionality of 1915(g) against due process, equal protection, and access to the courts
challenges.” 	Burghart v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 350 F. App’x 278, 279 (10th Cir. 2009)
(unpublished) (citing White v. Colo., 157 F.3d 1226, 1232–35 (10th Cir. 1998)); see also Kinnell
v. Graves, 265 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 2001) (finding that the court in White held that ifp status
in a civil case is not a fundamental right and that § 1915(g) “is rationally related to the legitimate
end of deterring frivolous and malicious prisoner lawsuits”) (quoting White, 157 F.2d at 1233–34).
Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied for the same
reasons set forth in the Court’s M&O denying Plaintiff’s first motion. Plaintiff is cautioned that
the deadline to submit his filing fee is April 30, 2026.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second Motion for Leave to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis (Doc. 6) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court-ordered April 30, 2026 deadline to submit
the $405.00 filing fee remains in effect. The failure to submit the fee by that date will result in the
dismissal of this matter without prejudice and without additional prior notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated April 14, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-03072-JWL Document 9 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 2