Haugland v. Microsoft Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
THEODORE HAUGLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-cv-00190-DKW-WRP
ORDER (1) GRANTING
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT
PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS,
AND (2) DIRECTING SERVICE
OF THE COMPLAINT1
On April 9, 2026, Plaintiff Theodore Haugland, proceeding without counsel,
filed a Complaint against Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft), asserting numerous
tort claims and alleging that Microsoft’s “artificial intelligence system known as
Microsoft Copilot” falsely describes Haugland as “a criminal involved in fraud,
financial misconduct, violent activity, and drug-related offenses.” 	Dkt. No. 1. 	At
the same time, Haugland also applied for leave to proceed without prepayment of
fees and costs, Dkt. No. 3, which the Court denied without prejudice for being
incomplete, Dkt. No. 8. 	On April 30, 2026, Haugland timely filed a renewed
application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs (IFP Application),
1 The Court finds these matters suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule
7.1(c).
Case 1:26-cv-00190-DKW-WRP Document 12 Filed 05/01/26 Page 1 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

2
Dkt. No. 10, which the Court now reviews and GRANTS for the reasons set forth
below.
I. 	IFP Application
Federal courts can authorize the commencement of any suit without
prepayment of fees or security by a person who submits an affidavit that
demonstrates an inability to pay. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 	While
Section 1915(a) does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution,
Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948), the applicant
must nonetheless show that he is “unable to pay such fees or give security
therefor,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
In the IFP Application, Haugland asserts that his only income is $2,506 per
month in social security disability benefits and $432 per month in “SNAP
benefits[]” for food. 	Dkt. No. 10 at 1-2. 	He further asserts that he has less than
$100 in a checking or savings account, has sole custody over two minor children,
and has regular monthly expenses of approximately $2,200. 	Id. at 2. 	Based upon
these representations, Haugland’s income falls below the poverty threshold
identified by the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) 2026 Poverty
Guidelines for a household of three persons. 	See HHS Poverty Guidelines,
available at: https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines. 	In addition, Haugland has
Case 1:26-cv-00190-DKW-WRP Document 12 Filed 05/01/26 Page 2 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

3
insufficient assets, which allegedly consist of largely multiple computers and
printers, Dkt. No. 10 at 2, to provide security for the $405 filing fee while still
affording the necessities of life. 	See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234
(9th Cir. 2015) 	As a result, the Court GRANTS the IFP Application, Dkt. No. 10.
II. 	Service2
To facilitate service, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The Clerk’s Office is directed to send to Plaintiff: one copy of the
Complaint, Dkt. No. 1; one summons; one USM-285 form; one
Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons
form (AO 398); two (2) Waiver of Service of Summons forms
(AO 399); an instruction sheet; and a copy of this Order. 	The Clerk
shall also send a copy of this Order to the U.S. Marshal.
2. 	Should Haugland choose to use the U.S. Marshal to serve the
summons and Complaint, he shall complete the forms as directed and
then submit the following documents to the U.S. Marshal in Honolulu,
2 The Court subjects each civil action commenced pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to mandatory
screening and can order the dismissal of any claims it finds “frivolous, malicious, failing to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune
from such relief.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 	At this initial stage of the proceedings, without
any responsive pleading from Microsoft, and while acknowledging that there may be defenses,
affirmative or otherwise, to the claims alleged in the Complaint, the Court finds service of the
same to be appropriate.
Case 1:26-cv-00190-DKW-WRP Document 12 Filed 05/01/26 Page 3 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

4
Hawai‘i: a completed USM-285 form; a copy of the Complaint; the
summons; a completed Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of
Service of Summons form (AO 398); and two (2) completed Waiver
of Service of Summons forms (AO 399).
3. 	Upon receipt of these documents from Plaintiff, the U.S. Marshal
shall mail to Defendant: a copy of the Complaint; a completed Notice
of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service form (AO 398); and
two (2) completed Waiver of Service of Summons forms (AO 399), as
directed and specified by Haugland without payment of costs. 	See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(3).
4. 	The U.S. Marshal shall retain the summons and a copy of the
Complaint. 	The U.S. Marshal shall also file a returned Waiver of
Service of Summons form as well as any Waiver of Service of
Summons form that is returned as undeliverable, as soon as it is
received.
5. 	If Defendant does not return a Waiver of Service of Summons form
within sixty days from the date that such forms are mailed, the U.S.
Marshal shall:
Case 1:26-cv-00190-DKW-WRP Document 12 Filed 05/01/26 Page 4 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

5
a. 	Personally serve Defendant pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 566(c).
b. 	Within ten days after personal service is effected, file the return
of service, along with evidence of any attempts to secure a
waiver of service of summons and of the costs subsequently
incurred in effecting service. 	Said costs shall be enumerated
on the USM-285 form and shall include the costs incurred by
the U.S. Marshal’s office in photocopying additional copies of
the summons and the Complaint and for preparing new USM-
285 forms, if required. 	Costs of personal service will be taxed
against the City in accordance with the provisions of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2).
6. 	If Haugland does not wish to use the U.S. Marshal for service, he may
serve Microsoft on his own, in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4.
7. 	Haugland is cautioned that, if he fails to comply with this Order and
his non-compliance prevents timely and proper service as set forth in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), this action is subject to
dismissal for failure to serve.
8. 	After service of the summons and Complaint, whether accomplished
Case 1:26-cv-00190-DKW-WRP Document 12 Filed 05/01/26 Page 5 of 6
PageID.<pageID>

6
on his own or with the services of the U.S. Marshal, Haugland must
serve on Microsoft or its counsel a copy of all further documents he
submits to the Court. 	The U.S. Marshal is not responsible for serving
these documents on Plaintiff’s behalf. 	In addition, Haugland shall
include, with any original paper filed with the Clerk of Court, a
certificate stating the date that a copy of the document was served on
Microsoft or its counsel, and the manner in which service was
accomplished. 	Any paper received by a District or Magistrate Judge
that has not been filed with the Clerk of Court or that does not include
a certificate of service will be disregarded.
9. 	Haugland is further notified that he must comply with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the District of
Hawai‘i in pursuing this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 1, 2026 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
___________________________
Derrick K. Watson
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00190-DKW-WRP Document 12 Filed 05/01/26 Page 6 of 6
PageID.<pageID>