Gillam v. Kern

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DON JUAN GILLAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK KERN,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-cv-150-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Don Juan Gillam for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3). A federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed
without pre-payment of fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Nevertheless, a court can deny a qualified
plaintiff leave to file in forma pauperis or can dismiss a case if the action is clearly frivolous or
malicious or fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). The test for determining
if an action is frivolous or without merit is whether the plaintiff can make a rational argument on
the law or facts in support of the claim. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Corgain
v. Miller, 708 F.2d 1241, 1247 (7th Cir. 1983). An action fails to state a claim if it does not
plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). When assessing a petition to proceed in forma pauperis, a
district court should inquire into the merits of the plaintiff’s claims, and if the court finds them to
be frivolous, it should deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Lucien v. Roegner, 682 F.2d
625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982).
The Court is satisfied from Gillam’s affidavit that he is indigent. The Court further finds
his complaint attempts to articulate a non-frivolous claim for deprivation of a property interest
Case 3:26-cv-00150-JPG Document 5 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Pro’s Sports Bar &
Grill, Inc. v. City of Country Club Hills, 589 F.3d 865, 872 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[D]enying renewal
to a liquor license holder without a hearing or other adjudication violates due process.”).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3).
The plaintiff having been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must
order service of process by a United States Marshal or Deputy Marshal or other specially
appointed person. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
If the plaintiff wishes the United States Marshals Service to serve process in this case, the
Court DIRECTS the plaintiff to provide to the United States Marshals Service the summons
issued in this case, the appropriately completed USM-285 forms and sufficient copies of the
complaint for service. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send the plaintiff a sufficient
number of blank summons forms and USM-285 forms along with this order.
The Court further DIRECTS the United States Marshal, upon receipt of the
aforementioned documents from the plaintiff and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(c)(3), to serve a copy of summons, complaint and this order upon the defendant in any manner
consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, as directed by the plaintiff. Costs of service
shall be borne by the United States.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 11, 2026
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00150-JPG Document 5 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>