Tuck v. Merchants Credit Association
Filing
4
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. If it appears that Plaintiff's financial picture has improved for any reason, Court will direct the Plaintiff to pay the filing fee to the Clerk of the Court. Th e Clerk is directed to issue a summons so Plaintiff may serve the Complaint on Defendant. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 4/11/2017. (Summons t/w copy of this Order mailed to Plaintiff) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
DEBORAH TUCK,
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
17
Case No. 17-cv-00626-BAS-MDD
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS
v.
MERCHANTS CREDIT
ASSOCIATION,
[ECF No. 2]
Defendant.
18
19
20
On March 28, 2017, Plaintiff Deborah Tuck, proceeding pro se, commenced
21
this action against Defendant Merchants Credit Association alleging violations of the
22
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., the Federal Debt
23
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., and the California Rosenthal Fair
24
Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788, et seq. (ECF No. 1.) On the
25
same day, Plaintiff also filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis
26
(“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS
27
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP.
28
The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. Cal.
–1–
17cv626
1
Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d on other grounds,
2
506 U.S. 194 (1993) (holding that “Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing
3
court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied
4
the statute’s requirement of indigency”). It is well-settled that a party need not be
5
completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours
6
& Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §
7
1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states that one cannot because
8
of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and still be able to provide himself
9
and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. At the same time, however,
10
“the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not
11
squandered to underwrite, at public expense, . . . the remonstrances of a suitor who is
12
financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v.
13
Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984).
14
District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant
15
can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See e.g., Stehouwer
16
v. Hennessey, 841 F. Supp. 316, 321 (N.D. Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other
17
grounds, Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that a district
18
court did not abuse its discretion in requiring a partial fee payment from a prisoner
19
who had a $14.61 monthly salary and who received $110 per month from family).
20
Moreover, “in forma pauperis status may be acquired and lost during the course of
21
litigation.” Wilson v. Dir. of Div. of Adult Insts., No. CIV S-06-0791, 2009 WL
22
311150, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009) (citing Stehouwer, 841 F. Supp. at 321); see
23
also Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 1995) (holding that a
24
plaintiff who was initially permitted to proceed in forma pauperis should be required
25
to pay his $120 filing fee out of a $900 settlement). Finally, the facts as to the affiant’s
26
poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” United
27
States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981).
28
Having read and considered Plaintiff’s IFP application, the Court finds that
–2–
17cv626
1
Plaintiff meets the requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for IFP status. Plaintiff is
2
unemployed and unable to work because of disability. (IFP Mot. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff states
3
that her monthly income is approximately $876.00, and that she has $80.00 on hand,
4
but her monthly expenses total $1,440.00, including $650.00 for rent. (IFP Mot. ¶¶ 1,
5
4, 8.) Moreover, although Plaintiff indicates that she and her husband each own an
6
automobile, she also attests that her only checking account is overdrawn by $400.00.
7
(Id. ¶¶ 4, 5.) Thus, taking into account Plaintiff’s overall financial picture, the Court
8
finds that requiring Plaintiff to pay the court filing fees in this case would impair her
9
ability to meet basic living expenses. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339.
10
In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application for leave
11
to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) However, if it appears at any time in the
12
future that Plaintiff’s financial picture has improved for any reason, the Court will
13
direct Plaintiff to pay the filing fee to the Clerk of the Court. This includes any
14
recovery Plaintiff may realize from this suit or others, and any assistance
15
Plaintiff may receive from family or the government.
16
17
18
The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue a summons in this action so that
Plaintiff may serve the complaint on Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
DATED: April 11, 2017
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–3–
17cv626
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?