Hill v. U.S. Bank Home Mortgage

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA GLORIA HILL, Plaintiff, 8:25CV385 vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER U.S. BANK HOME MORTGAGE, JOE VASCO, and 100 YEAR HOMES, INC., Defendants. This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), Filing No. 2, and a “Motion for Summons”, Filing No. 3. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the IFP motion and will deny the Motion for Summons. I. IFP Plaintiff, a non-prisoner, filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Filing No. 2. Upon review of Plaintiff’s IFP Motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff is financially eligible to proceed in forma pauperis. Leave to proceed IFP shall therefore be granted. II. SUMMONS Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Summons, Filing No. 3, which is premature as the Court has not yet performed an initial review of the Complaint. See Jackson v. Herrington, 393 F. App'x 348, 353 (6th Cir. 2010) (“Rule 4 requires plaintiffs to serve each defendant with a summons and a copy of the complaint. But district courts cannot issue summonses in in forma pauperis cases until after screening the complaint for frivolousness and other defects under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) . . .”.) (citation omitted)). As the Court has not yet performed an initial review to determine whether this matter may proceed to service of process, the Motion for Summons shall be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is advised that, as her IFP Motion has been granted, the next step in her case will be for the Court to conduct an initial review of her claims set forth in the Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The review will be conducted in the Court’s normal course of business. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Summons, Filing No. 3, is denied without prejudice as premature. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP, Filing No. 2, is granted and the Complaint shall be filed without payment of fees. 3. An initial review of Plaintiff's claims set forth in the Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) will be conducted in the course of the Court’s normal business. Dated this 24th day of June, 2025. BY THE COURT: Cy Shit Joseph F. Bataillon Senior United States District Court