Rojas et al v. Countywide Financial et al
Filing
6
ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 3 , 4 , and Directing Plaintiffs to Pay the Filing Fee, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/11/12. 30-Day deadline. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
GERMAN ROJAS, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
)
)
COUNTYWIDE FINANCIAL, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )
Case No.: 1:12-cv-01393 LJO JLT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS
TO PAY THE FILING FEE
(Docs. 3-4)
Plaintiffs German Rojas and Tony Sickler (“Plaintiffs”) initiated this action by filing a
18
complaint on August 24, 2012. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs seek to proceed in forma pauperis, and filed
19
separate motions to proceed without payment of the filing fee. (Docs. 3-4).
20
As a general rule, all parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a United
21
States District Court must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, the Court may
22
authorize the commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees and costs of security
23
therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that . . . the person is unable to pay such fees or
24
give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Therefore, an action may proceed despite a
25
failure to prepay the filing fee only if leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted by the Court.
26
See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1178, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).
27
28
The Ninth Circuit has held “permission to proceed in forma pauperis is itself a matter of
privilege and not a right; denial of an informa pauperis status does not violate the applicant’s
1
1
right to due process.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984), citing Weller v.
2
Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963). In addition, the Court has broad discretion to grant
3
or deny a motion to proceed IFP. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990); Weller,
4
314 F.2d at 600-01. In making a determination, the Court “must be careful to avoid construing
5
the statute so narrowly that a litigant is presented with a Hobson’s choice between eschewing a
6
potentially meritorious claim or foregoing life’s plain necessities.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586
7
F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984).
8
Here, Plaintiffs applications do not demonstrate an inability to pay the Court costs due to
9
poverty. Both German Rojas and Tony Sickler report they are employed, and have a total income
10
of more than $4,900 each month. (Doc. 3 at 1, Doc. 4 at 1). In addition, Mr. Sickler reported he
11
has $800.00 in savings. (Doc. 3 at 3). Therefore, based upon their income and assets, Plaintiffs
12
have failed to make an adequate showing of indigence and have not demonstrated that they have
13
insufficient funds to pay the Court’s filing fee of $350.
14
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
15
1.
The motions to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED; and
16
2.
Plaintiffs ARE DIRECTED to pay the filing fee within 30 days of service of this
17
order. If Plaintiffs fail to pay the filing fee, the Court will dismiss the action.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
66h44d
September 11, 2012
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?