Lopez v. Lopez
1:24-cv-00985
D.N.M.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Samuel Rene Lopez, proceeding pro se, sought to file a civil case in the District of New Mexico without prepayment of fees, submitting a Short Form Application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- Magistrate Judge Fouratt found the Short Form insufficient and repeatedly ordered Lopez to submit a Long Form Application, particularly to assess whether his spouse’s assets could be considered.
- Instead of complying, Lopez challenged the requirement as unconstitutional, sought reassignment to an Article III judge, and argued prior IFP status in another case was sufficient.
- Judge Fouratt clarified that requiring the Long Form is supported by federal law and court practice; the undersigned Article III judge ultimately took over the case.
- Lopez requested additional relief, including immediate service of process, expedited hearing/trial, and judicial notice of disputed factual assertions against Judge Fouratt.
- All of Plaintiff’s motions—including for reassignment, IFP status based on the Short Form, judicial notice, and immediate hearing—were denied; he was ordered to submit the Long Form or pay fees within 21 days or face dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Requirement to File Long Form IFP Application | Unconstitutional; Short Form sufficient; prior cases granted on Short Form | Court needs full financial information (including spouse’s resources) to determine IFP status | Long Form required; Short Form insufficient per statute and precedent |
| Assignment to Article III Judge | Judge Fouratt must recuse for alleged constitutional violations; wants Article III judge | Magistrate handled only non-dispositive matters; process was proper | Moot—Article III judge (Strickland) already assigned; no error below |
| Judicial Notice of Factual Assertions | Seeks judicial notice of own unsupported allegations vs. Judge Fouratt | Only facts not subject to dispute or verifiable can be judicially noticed | Denied—allegations do not qualify for judicial notice |
| Immediate Service, Summonses, Expedited Hearing/Trial | Plaintiff requests issuance of summonses and trial without meeting IFP requirements | Service not permitted unless IFP status granted or fee paid | Denied—precondition not met; must submit Long Form or pay fee |
Key Cases Cited
- Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962) (district court must examine IFP applications for statutory compliance)
- Crownhart v. Walmart, 2022 WL 816985 (10th Cir. 2022) (court may consider combined income, including spouse’s, when assessing IFP)—not bluebook, omitted from list.
- Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2015) (court may consider access to other assets in IFP determination)
- Binford v. United States, 436 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) (judicial notice limited to certain facts or public records; cannot prove disputed facts)
- Scherer v. Kansas, 263 F. App’x 667 (10th Cir. 2008) (IFP applications evaluated on present financial status)