TCPA Plaintiff Answers Show Cause Order With Plea to Protect His 'in Forma Pauperis' Rights

to protect his rights as an in forma pauperis (in the manner of a pauper) litigant. Cunningham’s complaint “contains sufficient factual material and is not frivolous,” so the court “should allow this case to proceed,” said his response (docket 2:22-cv-00621) in U.S. District Court for Middle Alabama in Montgomery. “A finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,” it said. But an in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed “simply because the court finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely,” it said. “To conflate the standards of frivolousness and failure to state a claim,” as Southern Power argues, “would thus deny indigent plaintiffs the practical protections against unwarranted dismissal generally accorded paying plaintiffs” under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it said. In light of the congressional goal “of putting indigent plaintiffs on a similar footing with paying plaintiffs,” the defendant’s interpretation can’t “reasonably be sustained,” it said. “According opportunities for responsive pleadings to indigent litigants commensurate to the opportunities accorded similarly situated paying plaintiffs is all the more important because indigent plaintiffs so often proceed pro se and therefore may be less capable of formulating legally competent initial pleadings.” The show cause order from U.S. District Judge Chad Bryan had admonished Cunningham that in responding, he shouldn’t rely on “unsworn pleadings” but rather on “sworn/verified statements made under penalty of perjury” that support his TCPA claims. The judge did so after Southern Power called Cunningham’s complaint “impermissibly frivolous” because he in fact knows that Southern Power wasn't the party that inundated him with debt collection calls, but he’s suing the wholesale power company anyway.