La Douer v. U.C.S.F

Filing 16

ORDER REQUESTING CLARIFICATION RE: IFP APPLICATIONS 5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Charlene La Douer, 6 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Charlene La Douer. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 7/15/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2015)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
CHARLENE LA DOUER,

5

Case No. 15-cv-02214-MEJ

Plaintiff,
6

ORDER RE: APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

v.
7
U.C.S.F, et al.,

8

Defendants.
9
10
INTRODUCTION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff Charlene La Douer filed two Complaints and two Applications to Proceed In

12
13

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”).1 See Dkt. Nos. 1 (First Compl.); 8 (Second Compl.); 5 (First Appl.); 7

14

(Second Appl.). Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s IFP Applications, the Court requires

15

additional information before determining whether she may proceed in forma pauperis.
BACKGROUND

16
17

A.

The Complaints
Plaintiffs’ Complaints are hand-written and largely illegible and incomprehensible. From

18
19

what the Court can ascertain, Plaintiff’s First Complaint, filed on May 18, 2015, names as

20

Defendants “UCSF,” “Juvenile Court,” Mayor Ed Lee, and “Tesla.” First Compl. at 1. Plaintiff

21

appears to allege that UCSF Well Baby Nursery and Hospital engaged in “malpracticing” when a

22

nurse misread something about Plaintiff’s newborn child’s condition on August 2, 1999. Id. at 2.

23

As to Mayor Lee, Plaintiff appears to accuse him of “offering jobs to immigrants” and states:

24

“There jobs to fix up the city, where for drug police to know Jesus, and offer Rehab by

25

demonstrating job skills, to inmates of Calif. prisons . . . .” Id. She also mentions the fire

26
1

27
28

Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, but that form is
reserved for prisoners, which Plaintiff is not, and as such, the Court STRIKES that document.
See Dkt. No. 6. Consequently, this Order only considers Plaintiff’s two IFP Applications and her
Complaints.

1

department and “for every building to show concern for safety of 1806 Earthquake . . . .” Id. The

2

Complaint never mentions Tesla, the Juvenile Court, or why Plaintiff names them as Defendants.
Plaintiff’s Second Complaint, filed on May 27, 2015, names only “Caminar,” although it

3

discusses UCSF and the nurse, explaining that on July 28, 1999, the nurse misread her son’s “tox

5

screen[.]” Second Compl. at 2. She also discusses “CPS,” which appears to be Child Protective

6

Services, stating it “conspired prior to this for adoption without advising me or my consent” and

7

writing that “this has been an ongoing battle to keep me where they can control me[.]” Id.

8

Plaintiff alleges that Caminar “continues to have illegally obtained evidence, and sexual contents

9

in their [illegible] . . . to use to exploit, degrade, attack at anytime . . . .” Id. at 3. Plaintiff

10

demands “restorative justice . . . . including my parental rights,” as well as “an immediate

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

restraining order” and “a search warrant from their premises in San Mateo.” Id.

12

B.

13
14
15

In Forma Pauperis Application
Like her Complaints, Plaintiff’s IFP Applications are handwritten and often difficult to

read. There are also inconsistencies between the Applications.
In Plaintiff’s First Application, filed May 18, 2015, she indicates that she is unemployed

16

and receives $869 per month in SSI, which the Court takes to be Social Security Income. First

17

Appl. at 1-2. In the same section where she indicates her SSI, Plaintiff also writes “450.Rent[,]

18

110.storage[,] 50/wk [illegible,] 25/mother – owe mother 260 – Dental Credit ([illegible]

19

credit)[.]” Id. at 2. It is unclear whether those amounts are income or whether they are monthly

20

expenses, debts, or something else entirely. See id. Elsewhere she indicates that her monthly

21

expenses are $450 for rent, but does not list her monthly expenses for food, clothing, or utilities,

22

writing only that they are “included[,]” although it is unclear what she means by “included” or

23

where those expenses are included. Id. at 3. The Application also notes that she pays an

24

additional $260 per month on a charge account entitled “care credit.” Id. Plaintiff also provides

25

conflicting information about whether she has another lawsuit raising the claims present in this

26

action. Id. at 4. Specifically, Plaintiff marks that she does not have another lawsuit involving the

27

same claims, but in the following section provides what appears to be the name of an action

28

involving San Mateo County. Id.
2

1

Plaintiff’s Second Application, filed on May 27, 2015, indicates a monthly income of $900

2

a month but does not state the precise source. Second Appl. at 2. Additionally, in the section

3

asking Plaintiff to list her monthly expenses, she again writes $450 for rent, but like her First

4

Application, she does not list her monthly expenses for food, clothing, or utilities, writing only

5

that they are “included[,]” but failing to state where they are included. Id. at 3. Plaintiff identifies

6

a charge account, but her writing is illegible and the Court cannot determine the name and amount

7

owed to the listed account. Id. at 3. Plaintiff writes that she is owes a debt to her mother for “care

8

credit,” but does not indicate what balance is due. Id. at 3.

9
10

LEGAL STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court may authorize the commencement of a civil action

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IFP if it is satisfied that the plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the action. See

12

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The policy for allowing a plaintiff to proceed IFP is to protect litigants

13

from abandoning “what may be a meritorious claim in order to spare himself complete

14

destitution.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 340 (1948). However,

15

“[c]ourt permission to proceed in forma pauperis is itself a matter of privilege and not right; denial

16

of in forma pauperis status does not violate the applicant’s right to due process.” Franklin v.

17

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984).

18

To determine IFP eligibility, an applicant must “submit[] an affidavit that includes a

19

statement of all assets” showing that the applicant “is unable to pay such fees or give security

20

therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). To satisfy this requirement, “an affidavit [of poverty] is

21

sufficient which states that one cannot because of his [or her] poverty pay or give security for

22

costs . . . and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins,

23

335 U.S. at 339. The Ninth Circuit has held that “a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege

24

poverty ‘with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” Escobedo v. Applebees, __ F.3d __,

25

2015 WL 3499902, at *7 (9th Cir. June 4, 2015) (quoting United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d

26

938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)). The Court has discretion to make a factual inquiry into an IFP

27

applicant’s financial status and to deny the application where the applicant is unable or unwilling

28

to verify his or her poverty. McQuade, 647 F.2d at 940.
3

1

DISCUSSSION

2

Although Plaintiff claims that she is impoverished and cannot afford payment of the

3

requisite filing fees to commence her lawsuit, Plaintiff’s Applications are incomplete and contain

4

inconsistent information. Courts require more “particularity, definiteness and certainty” in

5

analyzing such applications. McQuade, 647 F.2d at 940.

6

For example, in the case of Bridgewater v. Bankson, the plaintiff submitted multiple IFP

7

applications, which contained inconsistencies and provided incomplete information about her

8

financial status. 2010 WL 291786, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2010). The Bridgewater court

9

initially denied the plaintiff’s first IFP application, noting inconsistencies between her reported net
income and expenses. Id. at *9. The court, however, allowed the plaintiff to amend and clarify

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

her IFP application, and consequently, plaintiff filed two more amended IFP applications. Id. But

12

again, the revised applications “fail[ed] to give a consistent or adequate statement of her finances.”

13

Id. As the court was unable to assess the plaintiff’s financial status based on her applications’

14

incomplete and conflicting representations, the court denied her applications. Id.; see also

15

Hopkins v. Tacoma Mun. Court, 393 F. App’x 476, 477 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming denial of IFP

16

application for not accounting for different statements regarding employment information); United

17

States v. Sidman, 470 F.2d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 1972) (an IFP application “must include, at a

18

minimum: Plaintiff’s income in such a manner that the Court can accurately calculate annual

19

income . . . and any debts or expenses that reduce monthly and yearly income.”).

20

As in Bridgewater, Plaintiff’s Applications are incomplete and reveal inconsistencies.

21

Among other things, Plaintiff’s Applications reflect two different monthly income amounts and do

22

not specify the precise sources for this monthly income. Additionally, while Plaintiff’s

23

Applications consistently state that her rent is $450 per month, it is unclear how much, if anything,

24

she pays for food, clothing, or utilities, and the Court is unable to determine what she means by

25

“included.” Further, it appears Plaintiff owes a debt to her mother, but it is not clear how much

26

she owes or pays per month. Given this incomplete and sometimes inconsistent information, the

27

Court cannot currently assess whether Plaintiff’s financial status qualifies her to proceed IFP. See

28

Bush v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 2007 WL 4365381, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 10, 2007) (“In
4

1

forma pauperis status is usually reserved either for indigent prisoners or for persons who subsist

2

on small fixed-income payments such as social security, unemployment compensation, or public

3

assistance and who would truly be required to forego food, shelter, clothing, or some other

4

necessity were they to devote any of their scant resources to paying a judicial filing fee.”).

5

Nonetheless, as in Bridgewater, the Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to cure the

6

issues identified above.
CONCLUSION

7

Based on the foregoing, if Plaintiff wishes to proceed IFP, the Court ORDERS her to file

9

one amended IFP Application providing clear, legible, and complete answers to all the questions

10

in the Application. Plaintiff must file her amended application by August 12, 2015. If Plaintiff

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

does not file an amended IFP Application by August 12, 2015, her Complaint may be dismissed.

12

The Court further VACATES the August 20, 2015 Case Management Conference and all

13

related deadlines pending resolution of Plaintiff’s IFP Application.

14

Additionally, as Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, she may wish to seek assistance from the

15

Legal Help Center, a free service of the Volunteer Legal Services Program, by calling 415-782-

16

8982, or by signing up for an appointment on the15th Floor of the Federal Courthouse in San

17

Francisco, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. At the Legal Help Center, you

18

will be able to speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help but not

19

representation. More information is available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. Plaintiff

20

may also obtain a copy of the Court’s Handbook for Litigants Without a Lawyer, available free of

21

charge in the Clerk’s Office, or online at http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbk. This handbook

22

provides an explanation of the required components of a complaint.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26
27

Dated: July 15, 2015
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

28
5

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

CHARLENE LA DOUER,

Case No. 15-cv-02214-MEJ

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

U.C.S.F,
Defendant.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on July 15, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

14
15
16

Charlene La Douer
505 Cypress
S.S.F, CA 94128

17
18
19
20

Dated: July 15, 2015
Richard W. Wieking
Clerk, United States District Court

21
22
23

By: ___________________________
Chris Nathan, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable MARIA-ELENA JAMES

24
25
26
27
28
6