Turner v. Sowers et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
VERNON P. TURNER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 25-1109-JWB-GEB
)
TRAVIS SOWERS, )
CITY OF KINGMAN, KANSAS, )
)
Defendants. )
)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Vernon P. Turner’s Motion to Proceed
Without Prepayment of Fees (“IFP Motion”) (ECF No. 3, sealed) and supporting Affidavit
of Financial Status (ECF No. 3-1 sealed), Motion for Status (ECF No. 7) and Motion for
Ruling (ECF No. 8). For the reasons outlined below, Plaintiff’s IFP Motion (ECF No. 3)
is GRANTED, Motion for Status (ECF No. 7) is FOUND AS MOOT, and Motion for
Ruling (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED.
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
in forma pauperis in a civil case ‘is a privilege, not a right—fundamental or otherwise.’”2
1 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)).
2 Id. (quoting White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998)).
Case 6:25-cv-01109-JWB-GEB Document 9 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 2

The Court reviews the party’s financial affidavit and compares his 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. 3-1 sealed), and comparison of Plaintiff’s listed monthly income and
listed monthly expenses, the Court finds he is financially unable to pay the filing fee.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED.
IT IS ORDERED where the Court has issued its ruling on Plaintiff’s IFP Motion,
his Motion for Status (ECF No. 7) is FOUND AS MOOT and Motion for Ruling (ECF
No. 8) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Service of process shall be undertaken by the clerk
of court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 20th day of January, 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, *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)).
Case 6:25-cv-01109-JWB-GEB Document 9 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 2