Curtzwiler, et al. v. Vandeventer, et al.

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/7/2016 DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP, 6 Amended Motion to Proceed IFP. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH CURTZWILER, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-0315 MCE AC

v.

ORDER

CLARK VANDEVENTER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Defendants Clark Vandeventer and Monica Vandeventer, having removed this action from

17
18

State court, have requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 1915. ECF No. 2 (original motion), 6 (amended motion). The IFP application was referred to

20

the undersigned by the district judge presiding over this case. See ECF No. 4.1
Documents attached to the 24-page IFP application show that defendants have a gross

21
22

annual income of $181,450 per year, and a net cash flow (that is, take-home pay less expenses)

23

every month of $4,470. The undersigned concludes that the in forma pauperis application does

24

not make the showing of poverty that is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Defendant Clark Vandeventer asserts that he has a twice-per-month gross pay of $5,417,

25
26
27
28

1

Defendants filed an amended IFP application after the initial referral, but the undersigned
understands that the referral is still in effect, and that it applies to the amended motion.
1

1

with a twice-per-month take-home pay of $2,066.57.2 ECF No. 6 at 3. This translates to a

2

monthly gross pay of $11,737 ($140,842 per year), with a monthly take-home pay of $4,477.56

3

($53,731 per year).

4

However, defendants have attached a pay stub for Clark Vandeventer, which appears to

5

contradict these numbers. The pay stub indicates that Clark Vandeventer’s “gross earnings” –

6

which includes his “regular” pay plus several other items – was $6,508.08 for the two week

7

period of “01/16/16 to 01/31/16,” and that his “net pay” for that two-week period – as reflected in

8

his pay stub – was $4,168.75. ECF No. 6-1 at 3. Thus, according to the pay stub, defendant’s

9

gross monthly pay is $14,100.84 ($169,210 per year), with a monthly take-home pay of $9,032

10

($108,388 per year). Defendants’ IFP application offers no explanation for the apparent

11

discrepancy between Clark Vanderventer’s asserted pay and the pay shown on his pay stub.

12
13

Defendant Monica Vandeventer discloses that she has a gross monthly pay of $1,020
($12,240 per year) and a monthly take-home pay of $727 ($8,724 per year).

14

Defendants’ combined take-home pay (using the numbers from Clark Vandeventer’s pay

15

stub) is $9,759 per month. That does not qualify them for in forma pauperis status, even after

16

their stated “total expenses” of $5,289 per month are considered.

17

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ request to proceed in forma

18

pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 6) is DENIED.

19

DATED: June 7, 2016

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Clark Vandeventer uses the term “bi-monthly.” A paycheck annexed to the IFP application
confirms that Clark Vandeventer’s “regular” pay for the two-week period of “01/16/16 to
01/31/16” was $5,416.66.
2