Akins v. Uber Technologies Inc

IN THE UNITED-STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
NAV ASHIA AKINS 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	No. 4:25-cv-1127-DPM
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 	DEFENDANT
ORDER
1. 	Akins' s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 1, is
granted, but she must still pay the filing fee over time. 	With the power
to waive all fees comes "the lesser power to set partial fees." Olivares v.
Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995) (listing cases including In re
Williamson, 786 F.2d 1336, 1339-41 (8th Cir. 1986)). 	Since May, Akins
has filed seven suits in this district seeking in forma pauperis status in
each. This Court is open to all, but judicial resources are limited. Time
spent on each case necessarily reduces the time available to work on
other cases. Filing fees help pay for court operations. 	And they create
an incentive for litigants to file meritorious cases rather than frivolous
ones. 	Starting with this case, therefore, the Court will begin assessing
the filing fee in all later cases assigned to me that Akins has filed or files.
The Court assesses an initial partial filing fee of $10. Akins must pay it
by 10 January 2026. She must also pay $10 by the 10th of each following
month until the entire $405 filing fee is satisfied. 	If she does not pay
Case 4:25-cv-01127-DPM Document 3 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 3

these fees in each case, her complaint in that case will be dismissed
without prejudice. 	Olivares, 59 F.3d at 112.
2. 	The 	Court 	must 	screen 	Akins's 	complaint. 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). 	Akins, a former Uber driver, says that Uber violated its
platform access agreement. 	She says it locked her out of its driver
platform on receipt of an incorrect background report from Checkr, Inc.
Doc. 2 at 2. 	Although Checkr, Inc. has since corrected the report, Akins
has been unsuccessful in reactivating her driving privileges with Uber.
She sues Uber for breach of contract, refusing to arbitrate her claims,
and 	under 	the 	Fair 	Credit 	Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 	§ 	1681b(b)(3).
Akins alleges 	that Uber failed to provide her with "pre-adverse or
adverse-action notices" as required under the FCRA before denying her
access to its driver platform. 	She asks that her Uber driver access be
reinstated and for damages. 	She has 	stated plausible contract and
FCRA claims.
3. 	The Clerk must prepare summons for Uber, Inc. 	The Clerk
must provide copies of the summons, the complaint, and this Order to
the Marshal, who is directed to serve process, without prepayment of
fees, by registered mail, restricted delivery, return receipt required, on
Uber, 	Inc.' s 	registered 	agent 	listed 	in 	Akins' s 	Complaint 	as 	CT
Corporation System, 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1900, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72201. 	The 	Court 	directs 	the 	Marshal to serve process,
without 	prepayment 	of fees, 	by 	registered mail, restricted deliver,
-2-
Case 4:25-cv-01127-DPM Document 3 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 3

return 	receipt 	required 	on 	any 	registered agent, officer, 	managing
agent, or any other agent authorized to receive service at Uber, Inc.,
1725 Third Street, San Francisco, California 94158.
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
- 3 -
Case 4:25-cv-01127-DPM Document 3 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 3