United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H. WALKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is , the pro se Plaintiff's second
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
filed December 7, 2017. In her form complaint [“Pro Se 1
(Rev. 12/16) Complaint for a Civil Case”] and its
accompanying civil cover sheet, Plaintiff Kimberly Edwards
states, without elaboration, that the basis of jurisdiction
is federal question, and that both Plaintiff and Defendant
are citizens of Mississippi. [1, p. 3], [1-1]
Order , entered December 15, 2017, the undersigned ordered
Edwards to provide additional information by December 29,
2017, by completing and filing the long form Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (AO
239, Rev. 01/15). The Court included the form with the copy
of the order mailed to Edwards at her address of record: 184
Kings Drive, P.O. Box 312, Pickens, MS 39146. The order was
presumptively received by Edwards as it was not returned, but
Edwards did not respond. On January 23, 2018, the undersigned
entered a Report and Recommendation  recommending that
Edwards' first application to proceed IFP  be denied.
On January 25, 2018, Edwards acknowledged receipt of the
Report and Recommendation mailed to her at the same address
as the prior order.  On January 26, 2018, Edwards filed
her second motion for leave to proceed IFP , using the
form the Court had mailed her on December 15, 2017. Although
the District Judge has not yet ruled on the Report and
Recommendation regarding the first IFP application, the
undersigned finds no reason to delay addressing Edwards'
second IFP application.
Court has examined Edwards' application which lists no
income other than monthly child support of $175, with an
added notation “no job at moment.” She states her
employment ended August 19, 2016 and her spouse's
employment ended February 27, 2016; that she has no cash or
bank accounts, owns no home, real estate, automobiles or any
other assets; and she lists no monthly expenses. Where a
plaintiff's financial information shows that a filing fee
would cause “undue financial hardship, ” the
Court has discretion to reduce or waive the fee. Prows v.
Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988). Based on the
information provided in the second IFP application , the
undersigned finds the 28-year-old Plaintiff should be allowed
to proceed without the prepayment of fees.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), granting Edwards' second
application for IFP status permits the Court to dismiss the
case at any time if it determines the Complaint fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted. Application of
the statute is not limited to prisoner lawsuits. Newsome
v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231-33 (5th Cir. 2002). The Court
may also dismiss the case if there is no basis for federal
subject matter jurisdiction. Rule 8, Fed.R.Civ.P., requires
that a complaint contain both “a short and plain
statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction,
” and “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief...”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1) and (2); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The undersigned is of the opinion
that Plaintiff's complaint does not meet these standards.
Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and it is presumed
“that a suit lies outside this limited jurisdiction,
and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on
the party seeking the federal forum.” Howery v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001).
Subject matter jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown
before the District Court considers the merits of a case. See
Ruhrgas A.G. v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574,
582-583 (1999). The Court must, on its own initiative,
inquire into its subject-matter jurisdiction; it may raise
the jurisdictional issue sua sponte at any time, and
has a “continuing obligation to examine the basis for
jurisdiction.” MCG, Inc. v. Great Western Energy
Corp., 896 F.2d 170, 173 (5th Cir. 1990); Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(h)(3). The undersigned is of the opinion that Edwards has
failed to affirmatively show a basis for subject matter
jurisdiction in the present case.
undersigned appreciates the duty to liberally construe
Edwards' pro se complaint and take as true all
well-pleaded allegations but, “Even a liberally
construed pro se civil rights complaint ... must set
forth facts giving rise to a claim on which relief may be
granted.” Johnson v. Atkins, 999 F.2d
99, 100 (5th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Edwards'
statement of claim in the present case asserts only that she
is “finding out [her son] has a learning disability,
” that he “has been discriminated ... hasn't
had a book project yet;” that she sees on Facebook that
“everybody (sic) child has done a book report
except mines (sic).” [1, p. 4] The remaining
allegations are that:
I don't know when PTA meetings are, his homework be left
in his book bag, or have the same pages that he has had
previously. He hasn't went on a school trip since he been
there. $4, 000, 000.00. Sometimes his math homework is
missing, he never received his behavior binder journal. I
have had conferences with the teacher, principal and even
been to the central office & talked to the Asst
Superintendent to no avail.
[1, pp. 4-5]
on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that 
Plaintiff's second application for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis be granted. However, because
Plaintiff's complaint provides no discernible basis for
subject matter jurisdiction in this Court, the undersigned
recommends the case be dismissed without prejudice.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
the rules, Plaintiff has 14 days after service of a copy of
this Report and Recommendation to serve and file with the
Clerk any written objections to it, specifically identifying
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations to which she
objects. L.U.Civ.R. 72(a)(3). Failure to timely file
written objections bars a party, except on grounds of plain
error, from attacking on appeal proposed factual findings or
legal conclusions accepted by the District Court to which no
objection was made. Responses to objections ...