Morris v. Department of the Navy
Filing
3
ORDER Denying Plaintiffs 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis And Dismissing Action Without Prejudice. It is ordered that Plaintiff's IFP Motion is denied and the action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prepay the $400 filing fee required. Plaintiff is granted forty-five(45) days days from the date on which this Order is electronically docketed in which to re-open his case by either: (1) paying the entire $400 statutory and administrative filing fee, or ( 2) filing a new IFP Motion that addresses the above shortcomings identified by the Court. Failure to re-open this case in the time allotted may result in a dismissal of this case with prejudice. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 6/20/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DEREK J. MORRIS,
Case No.: 17-CV-1000 JLS (AGS)
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING
ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
Defendant.
15
(ECF No. 2)
16
17
18
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Derek J. Morris’s Motion to Proceed In Forma
19
Pauperis (“IFP”). (“IFP Mot.,” ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff appears to have appealed his removal
20
by the Navy on allegedly discriminatory grounds to the United States Court of Appeals for
21
the Federal Circuit, which recently transferred the case to this Court because it lacked
22
jurisdiction to review Plaintiff’s appeal. (Compl., ECF No. 1-26 (Order Transferring
23
Case).) The Federal Circuit also transferred Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, which is
24
now pending before the Court.
25
All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the
26
United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of
27
$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay
28
the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1
17-CV-1000 JLS (AGS)
1
§ 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court
2
may authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of fees if the party
3
submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that he is unable to pay the
4
required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
5
In the present case, Plaintiff has not prepaid the required $400 filing fee, but has
6
instead filed an application to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (See generally
7
IFP Mot.) “One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain [the] benefits of the in forma
8
pauperis statute,” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960), and “there
9
is no formula set by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor
10
enough to earn IFP Status,” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015).
11
However, a plaintiff must allege poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and
12
certainty.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. This is because proceeding IFP is a privilege and
13
not a right, and the decision to grant or deny an IFP petition “is a matter within the
14
discretion of the trial court . . . .” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963).
15
In the present case, Plaintiff’s affidavit indicates that he has an average monthly
16
income from retirement benefits of $2,500 and expects the same payment next month. (IFP
17
Mot. 3–4.1) Additionally, Plaintiff’s spouse has an average monthly income of $9,348
18
(from employment and real property), and expects the same payment next month. (Id.)
19
Plaintiff estimates his monthly expenses to be $3,060, and his spouse’s expenses to be
20
$7,149, including $500 for recreation and entertainment. (Id. at 6–7.) Plaintiff also owns a
21
home valued at $450,000 and another piece of real estate valued at $400,000. (Id. at 5.) He
22
also owns a car valued at $2,500, and his spouse owns a car valued at $15,000. (Id.) Plaintiff
23
has savings in the amount of $1,500, and his spouse has savings in the amount of $3,500.
24
(Id.) Plaintiff also indicates that he has paid or will pay an attorney $10,000 to assist him
25
with this case. (Id. at 7.)
26
27
28
1
Pin citations to docketed material refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each
page.
2
17-CV-1000 JLS (AGS)
1
As Plaintiff’s Motion currently stands, the Court is not convinced that IFP status
2
should be granted. Plaintiff principally argues that he “is not willing to exhaust his veteran
3
pension to school loans and a matter involving the Merit Systems Protection and
4
Department of the Navy,” (id. at 3), but his affidavit demonstrates that he—and his
5
spouse—can cover the initial filing fee. Plaintiff further argues that his spouse “has nothing
6
to do with the federal question jurisdiction” of this case, (id.), but Plaintiff does not
7
otherwise declare that his spouse is unwilling or unable to assist with the payment of this
8
initial filing fee.
9
Because Plaintiff’s IFP Motion fails due to the above deficiencies, the Court need
10
not address the additional requirements for granting an IFP Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
11
However, the Court nonetheless notes that it appears Plaintiff’s complaint may fail for lack
12
of a short and plain statement, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a),2 and for failure to state a claim on
13
which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 5 U.S.C. §§ 7702,
14
7703(b)(2).
15
CONCLUSION
16
For these reasons:
17
(1)
Plaintiff’s IFP Motion (ECF No. 2) is DENIED and the action is
18
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prepay the $400 filing fee required
19
by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).
20
(2)
Plaintiff is GRANTED forty-five (45) days from the date on which this Order
21
is electronically docketed in which to re-open his case by either: (1) paying the entire $400
22
statutory and administrative filing fee, or (2) filing a new IFP Motion that addresses the
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
27
28
2
This may be a function of Plaintiff initially filing his case with the Federal Circuit, so Plaintiff will have
an opportunity to conform his filing to the requirements of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California.
3
17-CV-1000 JLS (AGS)
1
above shortcomings identified by the Court. Failure to re-open this case in the time allotted
2
may result in a dismissal of this case with prejudice.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 20, 2017
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
17-CV-1000 JLS (AGS)
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?