Montorey LLC et al v. United States et al

Filing 3

ORDER Denying 2 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis without prejudice. Within fourteen days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall either: (a) pay the requisite $400 filing fee, or (b) file a renewed motion for IFP containing the re quisite information regarding his ability to pay the costs of commencing this action. If Plaintiff fails to timely submit payment or a renewed motion for IFP, this case shall be dismissed. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 08/23/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No.: 17cv1636-MMA (MDD) MONTOREY LLC, MONTOREY DANYELL HARPER, 11 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 UNITED STATES, UN, NATO, 14 15 [Doc. No. 2] Defendants. 16 17 On August 14, 2017, Plaintiffs Montorey LLC and Montorey Danyell Harper filed 18 this action against the United States, UN, and NATO. Plaintiff Montorey Harper 19 simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. No. 2. 20 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 21 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 22 $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 23 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed in 25 forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 26 1965). A party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. Adkins v. 27 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). But “the same even- 28 handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to -1- 17cv1636-MMA (MDD) 1 underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor 2 who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. 3 Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). Further, although only one filing fee is 4 required per case, where there are multiple plaintiffs, a court may consider the 5 availability of funds from each of the plaintiffs in determining whether to grant IFP 6 status. See Nur v. Blake Development Corp., 664 F. Supp. 430, 431 (N.D. Ind. 1987). 7 Plaintiff Montorey Harper states that has a monthly income of $4,231.00 per 8 month—$2,915.00 in disability payments, and $1,316.00 in other funds. He also avers 9 that he has $220.00 in cash and $80.88 in bank accounts. Plaintiff states that his monthly 10 expenses amount to $3,100.00, meaning that his net income amounts to more than 11 $1,000.00 per month. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff is able to pay the $400 filing 12 fee in order to institute this action. Thus, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s 13 motion to proceed IFP. Doc. No. 2; see Civ. L.R. 3.2. Within fourteen days of the date 14 of this Order, Plaintiff shall either: (a) pay the requisite $400 filing fee, or (b) file a 15 renewed motion for IFP containing the requisite information regarding his ability to pay 16 the costs of commencing this action. If Plaintiff fails to timely submit payment or a 17 renewed motion for IFP, this case shall be dismissed. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 21 22 Date: August 23, 2017 _____________________________ Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 17cv1636-MMA (MDD)

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?