Hamilton v. California Air Resources Board et al

Filing 6

ORDER signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/2/2016 denying in part 2 Motion to Proceed IFP and reducing filing fee to $175.00. (Case Management Deadline: 4/4/2016). (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Case No. 1:15-cv-01942-AWI-SKO

WILLIAM A. HAMILTON,
v.
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES
BOARD, a California Public Agency;
TAJINDER GILL, BARRY HO, in their
official capacity as Engineers of the California
Air Resources Board; and KIRK OLIVER, in
his official capacity as Esquire, Office of Legal
Affairs, of the California Air Resources Board,

ORDER DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS AND REDUCING
FILING FEE
(Doc. 2)

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

17
I.

18
19

INTRODUCTION

On December 30, 2015, Plaintiff William A. Hamilton (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint

20 against Defendants California Air Resources Board, a California Public Agency; Tajinder Gill and
21 Barry Ho, in their official capacity as Engineers of the California Air Resources Board; and Kirk
22 Oliver, in his official capacity as Esquire, Office of Legal Affairs, of the California Air Resources
23 Board (“Defendants”) (Doc. 1) and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), seeking
24 to be excused from having to pay the required filing fee (Doc. 2).
II.

25

DISCUSSION

26 A.

Legal Standard

27

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a United States District Court

28 must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure

1 to prepay the fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2 § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).
3

This Court has broad discretion to grant or deny Plaintiff’s motion. O’Loughlin v. Doe,

4 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). “[P]ermission to proceed in forma pauperis is itself a matter of
5 privilege and not right; denial of in forma pauperis status does not violate the applicant’s right to
6 due process.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984). “The trial court must be
7 careful to avoid construing the statute so narrowly that a litigant is presented with a Hobson’s
8 choice between eschewing a potentially meritorious claim or foregoing life’s plain necessities.
9 [Citations]. But, the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not
10 squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a
11 suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v.
12 Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984).
13

To prevail on a motion to proceed IFP, a plaintiff need not demonstrate that he is

14 completely destitute but must show that, because of his poverty, he cannot pay the filing fee and
15 still provide his dependents with the necessities of life. See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &
16 Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). A “‘showing of something more than mere hardship must be
17 made.’” Nastrom v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 2011 WL 7031499, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7,
18 2011) (quoting Martin v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 221 F. Supp. 757, 759 (W.D. La. 1963).
19 B.

Plaintiff’s IFP Application

20

The information set forth in Plaintiff’s IFP application does not demonstrate his inability to

21 pay any amount for the Court’s filing fee. The application indicates that Plaintiff’s gross monthly
22 wages are $3400 per month and his take-home wages are $ 3,000 per month, he has monthly
23 expenses of $3090, and has one dependent living with him. (Doc. 2.) The Court finds that his
24 income is sufficient to allow Plaintiff to pay a reduced filing fee in this case without causing him
25 to forgo the necessities of life. See Crawford v. Kern Cty. Cty. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Trustees, 2010
26 WL 1980246, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2010); Brown v. Yellow Freight Trucking, 2013 WL
27 85431, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) (citing Johnson v. Cargill, Inc., 2008 WL 501341, at *1
28 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 21, 2008) (denying motion to proceed IFP where plaintiff’s affidavit revealed
2

1 that her household income exceeded reasonable monthly expenses)).
2

Based on the details of Plaintiff’s income, assets, and expenses included in his application

3 to proceed IFP, the Court will not deny Plaintiff’s IFP application outright. Rather, the Court will
4 reduce the filing fee by half to $175, an amount the Court believes Plaintiff can afford based on
5 his application. See Poslof v. Walton, 2012 WL 691767, *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012) report and
6 recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 968028 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2012). Requiring Plaintiff to pay
7 such a reduced filing fee is within the Court’s discretion. See Johnson v. Next Day Blinds Corp.,
8 2013 WL 656782, *2 n.1 (D. Md. Feb. 21, 2013); Poslof, 2012 WL 697167 at *3; Dukes-Smith v.
9 Loyola Med. Ctr., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98934, *1 (N.D. Ill. July 9, 2012).
10

ORDER

11

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDER that:

12

1.

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED in part; and

13

2.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay a reduced filing fee of $175.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated: March 2, 2016

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3