Aana-Kepa v. Satterwhite, 1:25-cv-00260

Adam Aana-Kepa, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on June 24, 2025, alleging constitutional violations and negligence related to the removal of six minor children from their legal guardian (his mother).
Plaintiff's mother, the alleged guardian, is not a named party in this lawsuit.
Plaintiff simultaneously filed for in forma pauperis (IFP) status, but his initial application was denied due to insufficient information.
Plaintiff renewed his IFP application, providing more details about his financial status, including homelessness and no income.
The Court granted the renewed IFP application, allowing Plaintiff to proceed without paying filing fees, and directed specific procedures for service of process on the seven named defendants.
The decision does not resolve the underlying claims but focuses on the procedural matters of filing fees and serving the complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eligibility for IFP status	Aana-Kepa is indigent, homeless, and unable to pay fees	Not presented at this stage	Court grants IFP application
Sufficiency of financial declaration	Plaintiff provided enough detail in renewed application	Not presented at this stage	Declaration deemed sufficient
Appropriateness of proceeding without prepayment	Plaintiff meets statutory standard	Not presented at this stage	Plaintiff allowed to proceed IFP
Method and effectiveness of service	Plaintiff requires assistance to serve defendants	Not presented at this stage	U.S. Marshal to facilitate service

Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (standard for IFP application; absolute destitution not required)
Escobedo v. Applebee's, 787 F.3d 1226 (applicant must show inability to pay, not destitution)