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