Russell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

RYAN RUSSELL, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Case No. 26-CV-0006-CVE-JFJ

T-MOBILE USA, INC., PREMIER )

WIRELESS, CHAD HOPPING, GRAYSON )

LAMP, JACOB GERAGEN, DAVID )

ANDERSON, and FRANK FLETCHER )

TOYOTA OF JOPLIN, MISSOURI, )

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

On January 5, 2026, plaintiff Ryan Russell filed a pro se complaint (Dkt. # 2) and a motion

to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. #3). In reliance upon the representations and information set

forth in plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that the motion

should be granted. Plaintiff is permitted to file and maintain this action to conclusion without

prepayment of fees and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, because authorization to proceed in

forma pauperis excuses only prepayment of the fee, plaintiff remains obligated to pay the full $400

filing fee when he is able to do so. See Brown v. Eppler, 725 F.3d 1221, 1230-31 (10th Cir. 2013)

(noting that obligation to pay full amount of filing fee extends to all litigants who proceed in forma

pauperis because “all § 1915(a) does for a litigant is excuse pre-payment of fees”).

Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint alleging claims apparently based on unlawful

surveillance or stalking, although it is unclear from the complaint which defendants engaged in the

alleged conduct or when the conduct occurred. Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and he alleges that

defendants violated federal criminal statutes and violated his unspecified federal constitutional

rights. He also asserts claims of invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress,

defamation, and other state law tort claims, and he asserts that the Court can exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over these claims. Plaintiff seeks over $10 million in compensatory damages, plus

punitive damages and injunctive relief preventing future harassment.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a federal district may allow a person to commence a civil action

without prepayment of costs or fees and, although the statute references “prisoners,” the Tenth

Circuit has determined that the requirements of § 1915 apply to all persons seeking to proceed in

forma pauperis. Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff is

requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the requirements of § 1915 are applicable to this

case. Section 1915(e)(2) requires the district court to dismiss a case if at any time the court

determines that “the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious [or] (ii) fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted... .”

The Court will initially consider whether plaintiff's complaint could be construed to allege

a colorable claim arising under federal law. Generally, the “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires

that the federal question appear on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint. See Garley

v. Sandia Corp., 236 F.3d 1200, 1207 (10th Cir. 2001) (“The presence or absence of federal-question

jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction

exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded

complaint.”)(citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). “The complaint must

identify the statutory or constitutional provision under which the claim arises, and allege sufficient

facts to show that the case is one arising under federal law.” Martinez v. United States Olympic

Comm., 802 F.2d 1275, 1280 (10th Cir. 1986)). Plaintiff broadly alleges that his privacy rights are

being infringed upon by private actors, but he alleges no specific facts in support of his claims. Dkt.

# 2, at 2. Plaintiff cites 18 U.S.C. § 1030, which does provide a private right of action in limited

circumstances, but plaintiff has not alleged any specific conduct falling within the scope of the

statute or that his claim would fall within the relevant statute of limitations. Plaintiff also cites 18

U.S.C. § 2701, which does not provide a private right of action, and federal criminal statutes are not

typically construed to create a right of action for private parties. Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070,

1076 (10th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff references 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but it appears from plaintiff’s

allegations that all of the defendants are private parties. Without some state action, plaintiff cannot

state a violation of § 1983, even if he had more specifically identified the constitutional right that

was allegedly violated by defendants’ conduct. Wittner v. Banner Health, 720 F.3d 770, 773 (10th

Cir. 2013) (§ 1983 requires that the person plaintiff seeks to hold liable was acting under the color

of state law). Plaintiff contends that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over his state law

claims, but the Court has found no viable federal law claims in plaintiff’s complaint giving rise to

federal question jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction

over his state law claims, even if the Court were to assume that plaintiff had stated a colorable state

law claim.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt.

# 3) is granted.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. # 2) is dismissed under 28

U.S.C. § 1915 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. A separate judgment of dismissal is entered herewith.

DATED this 8th day of January, 2026.

By lee

CLAIRE V.EAGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE