Thiessen v. Plains, Kansas, City of

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
PETER THIESSEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF PLAINS, KANSAS,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-1078-DDC-BGS
MEMORANDUM & ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Peter Thiessen’s Application to
Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs, which requests leave for Plaintiff to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”).1 (Doc. 4, sealed.) For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s IFP application (Doc.
4) is GRANTED. That stated, because of the Court’s contemporaneously filed Report &
Recommendation of Dismissal to the District Court, the undersigned Magistrate Judge directs that
the Clerk shall not issue summons for service upon the Defendants at this time.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a federal court may authorize commencement of a civil action
“without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that . . . the
person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” To succeed on an IFP motion, “the
movant must show a financial inability to pay the required filing fees.” Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408
F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005). Proceeding IFP “in a civil case is a privilege, not a right –
fundamental or otherwise.” White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998). The decision to
1 Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court construes his filings liberally and holds him to a less stringent standard than
trained lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
But the Court does not assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant. Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
Case 6:26-cv-01078-DDC-BGS Document 8 Filed 05/04/26 Page 1 of 2

2
grant or deny IFP status under § 1915 lies within the district court’s sound discretion. Engberg v.
Wyoming, 265 F.3d 1109, 1122 (10th Cir. 2001).
Based on the financial information provided by Plaintiff in his motion (Doc. 3, sealed) and
affidavit of financial status (Doc. 3-1, sealed), the Court finds that his financial situation, when
taking into account any income as well as debts and financial obligations, establishes his inability to
pay the required filing fee and his access to the Court would be significantly inhibited if this motion
was not granted. Thus, the Court GRANTS his motion to proceed without prepayment of fees
(Doc. 3, sealed.)
Because of the Court’s contemporaneously filed Report & Recommendation of dismissal to
the District Court, the undersigned Magistrate Judge directs that the Clerk shall not issue summons
for service upon the Defendants at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s IFP application (Doc. 4) is
GRANTED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), Plaintiff may commence this action without
prepayment of fees.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because of the Court’s contemporaneously filed
Report & Recommendation of Dismissal, the Clerk shall not issue summons for service upon the
Defendants and the U.S. Marshals Service shall withhold service on Defendants until further order
of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 4th day of May, 2026, at Wichita, Kansas.
/S /BROOKS G. S EVERSON
Brooks G. Severson
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 6:26-cv-01078-DDC-BGS Document 8 Filed 05/04/26 Page 2 of 2