Mears v. Pride Industries, Inc. et al
Filing
3
ORDER Denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Motion is Denied pursuant to 28 USC 1915(g). Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 1/23/2017. (dxj)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
JOHN MEARS,
Case No.: 16-CV-3095 W (WVG)
Plaintiff,
14
15
v.
16
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IFP [DOC. 2]
PRIDE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
17
Defendant.
18
19
20
Plaintiff John Mears has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (the
21
“Motion” [Doc. 2]). The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s
22
discretion. California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991),
23
reversed on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing
24
court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the
25
statute’s requirement of indigency.”).
26
It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma
27
pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). To
1
16-CV-3095 W (WVG)
1
satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which
2
states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs ... and still be
3
able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. At the
4
same time, however, “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal
5
funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, ... the remonstrances of a suitor
6
who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v.
7
Ellerthorpe, 586 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984).
8
District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant can pay
9
the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., Stehouwer v. Hennessey,
10
851 F.Supp. 316, (N.D.Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other grounds, Olivares v. Marshall, 59
11
F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that district court did not abuse discretion in requiring
12
partial fee payment from prisoner with $14.61 monthly salary and $110 per month from
13
family); Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (Plaintiff initially
14
permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, later required to pay $120 filing fee out of $900
15
settlement proceeds); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F.Supp. 129, 130 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (in forma
16
pauperis application denied: “plaintiff possessed savings of $450 and the magistrate
17
correctly determined that this amount was more than sufficient to allow the plaintiff to pay
18
the filing fee in this action.”). Moreover, the facts as to the affiant’s poverty must be stated
19
“with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d
20
938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981).
21
Here, the application Plaintiff used to apply for IFP status required him to identify
22
any sources of “other income,” including “the amount that you received.” (See Motion ¶ 3.)
23
Plaintiff acknowledged that he “receives unemployment insurance (EDD)” but he failed to
24
identify the amount he receives. (Id.) Without that information, the Court cannot
25
//
26
//
27
2
16-CV-3095 W (WVG)
1
evaluate if Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for IFP status. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
2
Motion [Doc. 2] is DENIED without prejudice.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2017
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
16-CV-3095 W (WVG)
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?