Valdez v. Massangill et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MICHAEL G. VALDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 25-cv-0284-KWR-KRS
BILLY MASSANGILL, et al,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS RELIEF
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(Doc. 3) (IFP Motion). Plaintiff also filed a separate pro se motion seeking a ruling, presumably
on the IFP Motion (Doc. 5). Plaintiff’s information reflects that Plaintiff cannot afford to prepay
the $405 filing fee for this action. The Court will therefore grant the IFP Motion. Plaintiff is
reminded that such relief only excuses prepayment of the fee, and he remains obligated to pay when
funds exist. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Court will also grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Ruling (Doc. 5), to the extent he seeks an
in forma pauperis determination. To the extent he seeks a ruling on his Amended Civil Rights
Complaint (Doc. 2), such relief is premature. Prisoner complaints against government officials are
subject to an initial, sua sponte review. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). If the allegations in the complaint
state a facially meritorious claim, the Court typically orders an answer. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If,
however, the allegations are “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted,” the complaint will be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e); 1915A(b)(1). The Court will
issue a ruling on the substantive claims when the screening process is complete.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) is
Case 2:25-cv-00284-KWR-KRS Document 7 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 2

2
GRANTED; and Plaintiff’s Motion for Ruling (Doc. 5) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in
part, as set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 2026.
__________________________________
KEVIN R. SWEAZEA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00284-KWR-KRS Document 7 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 2