Duffy v. Ally et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-CV-00411-KDB-DCK
ELIZABETH DUFFY,
Plaintiff,
v. MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER
SHAHABUDDEEN A. ALLY,
CHIDI A. EZE, WAVNY
TOUSSAINT, KEVIN
MCCLANAHAN, MONIQUE
HOLAMAN, AND CARMEN
PACHECO,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(“IFP”) (Doc. No. 2). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will GRANT the Motion for the
limited purpose of conducting an initial review but DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint without
prejudice after conducting that review.
I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP
“The federal in forma pauperis statute, enacted in 1892 and presently codified as 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,
335 U.S. 331, 342-43 (1948)). To achieve its goal, the IFP statute “allows a litigant to commence
a civil or criminal action in federal court in forma pauperis by filing in good faith an affidavit
stating … that he is unable to pay the costs of a lawsuit.” Id. In her IFP motion, Plaintiff states that
her income is only slightly greater than her expenses, and she does not have enough funds in her
Case 3:26-cv-00411-KDB-DCK Document 3 Filed 05/29/26 Page 1 of 2

2
bank account to pay the filing fee. While the affidavit lacks information that the Court would
expect in a comprehensive financial affidavit, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not have assets
that would allow her to pay for these proceedings. See Doc. No. 2. Based on these representations,
the Court will conditionally grant the motion and permit Plaintiff to proceed IFP solely for the
limited purposes of this initial review.
II. Initial Review
Because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, the Court must review the Complaint to determine
whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In its frivolity review, this Court
must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded
upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios. Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 327-28. Furthermore, a pro se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a district
court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in the Complaint which set forth a claim that is
cognizable under federal law. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
Here, Plaintiff alleges only that “Defendants failed to show dignity in work.” Doc. No. 1
¶¶ 1–3. Even liberally construed, these allegations do not plausibly give rise to any cognizable
federal claim. Plaintiff’s Complaint therefore fails frivolity review and must be dismissed.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s IFP motion (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED for purposes of this Order;
2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
3. The Clerk is directed to close this matter in accordance with this Order.
SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED. Signed: May 29, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00411-KDB-DCK Document 3 Filed 05/29/26 Page 2 of 2