Bland v. California Coast Credit Union

Filing 5

ORDER denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing case without prejudice. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 09/29/11. (cge)(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) Modified text on 9/29/2011 (cge).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
CALIFORNIA COAST CREDIT UNION;
)
formerly First Future Credit Union and all
)
consortium members and affiliates also
including Solomon, Grindle and Winetringer, )
)
)
Defendants.
)
MICHAEL E. BLAND,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Civil No.11cv0892 AJB (POR)
ORDER DENYING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS
(Doc. No. 2)

On April 26, 2011, Michael E. Bland , a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Motion to

18

Proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 2] of case number 3:11-cv-00892-AJB-POR to this Court.

19

Plaintiff submitted a declaration in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis in accordance with

20

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and Local Rule 3.2(a).

21

The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s declaration of inability to pay costs or give security is

22

insufficient to permit Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. Permission to file a petition for writ of

23

mandamus in forma pauperis will not be granted unless there is some merit in the petition. 28 U.S.C.A.

24

§ 1915. “To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116

25

(9th Cir.1965). One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of statute dealing with proceed-

26

ings in forma pauperis in federal courts. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948).

27

The motion, however, must state facts as to affiant's poverty with some particularity, definiteness and

28

certainty. Jefferson v. U.S., 277 F. 2d 723 (9th Cir. 1960).
1

11cv0892

1

The Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis lacks merit because:

2

•

3
4

amount received.
•

5
6

Plaintiff notes supporting spouse with $1,500 “for rent and food,” but does not indicate
the source of such funding.

•

7
8

Plaintiff has noted receiving income from self-employment but has failed to describe the

Plaintiff’s debts of “IRS, taxes currently being filed” lack particularity, definiteness and
certainty.

•

9

Plaintiff has failed to note any housing, transportation, utilities, or loan payments, or other
regular monthly expenses.

10

It is under the Court's discretion to grant or deny permission to proceed in forma pauperis based

11

on the Plaintiff’s claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Without further evidence, the Court lacks specific facts

12

to find that the Plaintiff is not able to pay the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). It is advised that the

13

Plaintiff submit a current revision of the short form “Application To Proceed In District Court Without

14

Prepaying Fees or Costs” available on the United States Courts website.1

15

In light of this information, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in

16

forma pauperis is DENIED and the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Pursuant to this

17

Order, however, Plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to pay the $350 filing fee required to maintain this

18

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, or to submit additional documentation regarding the Plaintiff’s

19

economic status. IF PLAINTIFF CHOOSES TO FILE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE-

20

GARDING HIS POVERTY, HE MUST ATTACH A COPY OF THIS ORDER.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

DATED: September 29, 2011

24
Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
U.S. District Judge

25
26
27
28
1

http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO240.pdf
2

11cv0892