Dehen v. Doe et al
Filing
14
ORDER Denying 11 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and may be re-opened if Plaintiff pays the required filing fee within 45 days of the signature date of this Order. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 4/24/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)
Case 3:17-cv-00198-BEN-WVG Document 14 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.253 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TIFFANY DEHEN,
Case No.: 3:17-cv-00198-BEN-WVG
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
14
JOHN DOE; TWITTER, INC.;
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO,
[ECF No. 11]
15
16
Defendants.
17
18
On March 15, 2017, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
19
pauperis (“IFP”) because her IFP application lacked complete information about her
20
monthly income. The Court provided Plaintiff a new IFP application and granted her
21
leave to either pay the applicable filing fee or file a renewed motion to proceed IFP
22
within 21 days. Plaintiff subsequently filed an “In Forma Pauperis Decision Appeal”
23
(ECF No. 5), and later, a “Motion to Accept Late In Forma Pauperis Renewed
24
Application” (ECF No. 11). Her second motion includes a completed IFP application
25
and explains that she filed her first motion incorrectly. Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s
26
IFP application and the law, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP.
27
28
All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the
United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. 28
1
3:17-cv-00198-BEN-WVG
Case 3:17-cv-00198-BEN-WVG Document 14 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.254 Page 2 of 3
1
U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire
2
fee only if he or she is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
3
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),
4
[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement,
prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without
prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit
that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person
is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.
5
6
7
A party “need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis
8
9
statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960). “But ‘the same
10
even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to
11
underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor
12
who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.’” Anderson v.
13
California, No. 10-cv-2216 MMA (AJB), 2010 WL 5056019, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 6,
14
2010) (internal citation omitted). Thus, a court may deny IFP status to an applicant who
15
can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. Greene v. Rodriguez,
16
No. 07-cv-1888 W (BLM), 2008 WL 816797 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2008).
Plaintiff is a recent law school graduate and has no dependents. In Plaintiff’s
17
18
application, she admits to receiving approximately $1,900 in income each month during
19
the past twelve months. (ECF No. 11 at p. 7 § 1.) In 2016, while in law school, she
20
earned approximately $22,000. (Id. at p. 17.) She attests that she has continuously
21
worked since the age of 16. (Id. at pp. 13-14 ¶ 2.) Although she states that she does not
22
expect to receive any income next month (Id. at p. 7 ¶ 1), she also states that she is self-
23
employed (id. at p. 8 § 2, p. 11 ¶ 1). Plaintiff has total monthly expenses of
24
approximately $2,000. Those expenses include $950 in rent, $140 in utilities, $250 for
25
food, $20 for laundry and dry cleaning, $20 for medical and dental expenses, $70 for
26
transportation, $20-40 for taxes, $100-250 for business operation expenses, and $500 in
27
credit card payments. (Id. at pp. 10-11 § 8.)
28
///
2
3:17-cv-00198-BEN-WVG
Case 3:17-cv-00198-BEN-WVG Document 14 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.255 Page 3 of 3
1
Plaintiff has not established entitlement to in forma pauperis status. As a graduate
2
of both college and law school, Plaintiff is the type of plaintiff capable of “pull[ing] [her]
3
own oar.” Anderson, 2010 WL 5056019, at *1. Indeed, Plaintiff admits that she has
4
maintained employment since the age of 16. Although she states that her future income
5
is unknown and she has credit card debt, Plaintiff earned double the poverty level for an
6
individual in 2016 and has a demonstrated ability to earn a living. See 2016 Health &
7
Human Servs. Guidelines, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/
8
2016/01/25/2016-01450/annual-update-of-the-hhs-poverty-guidelines (last visited Apr.
9
20, 2017).
10
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not indigent within the meaning of the
11
IFP statute and DENIES her request to proceed IFP. See, e.g., Ross v. San Diego Cnty.,
12
No. 08-cv-0107 BEN (RBB), 2008 WL 440413, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2008) (denying
13
IFP status to unemployed plaintiff with “significant debt” who received disability
14
payments of approximately $2,100 a month). Plaintiff’s other pending motions are
15
DENIED as moot. (ECF Nos. 5, 13.) The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice
16
and may be re-opened if Plaintiff pays the required filing fee within 45 days of the
17
signature date of this Order.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 24, 2017
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:17-cv-00198-BEN-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?