Tuck v. Pacer Service Center U.S. Courts et al

Filing 3

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Court dismisses the Complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days leave to pay the filing fee required to maintain this action pursuant to 28 USC 1914, or to submit additional documentation regarding his financial status. Plaintiff is reminded that an IFP application is made under the penalty of perjury, and any false statements may result in dismissal of his claims, imprisonment of not more than five years, or a fine. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 9/12/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROY TUCK,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 17-cv-1720-BAS-KSC

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

PACER SERVICE CENTER U.S.
COURTS, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18
19

On August 24, 2017, Roy Tuck filed this case against Defendants for alleged

20

violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), the federal Fair

21

Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and

22

the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”). (ECF

23

No. 1.) Mr. Tuck moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) For the

24

reasons stated below, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Tuck’s

25

Motion.

26

I.

27

Roy Tuck and his wife Deborah Tuck, together with their son Richard Caruso

28

and mother-in-law Clarice Tuck, appear to have developed a cottage industry suing

STATEMENT OF FACTS

–1–

17cv1720

1

their creditors for violations of the TCPA, the FDCPA and the FCRA. In each case,

2

the parties request to proceed IFP, listing liabilities that far exceed assets. Curiously,

3

however, despite the fact that they have received settlements from approximately a

4

dozen different defendants, their assets and cash in their bank accounts remained

5

unchanged. A short list of examples includes:

6

1)

7
8

1377-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal.), settled on October 7, 2015 (ECF No. 7);
2)

9
10

Roy Tuck v. Receivables Performance Mgmt., Inc., Case No. 15-cv-

Roy Tuck v. DirecTV, Case No. 16-cv-0160-JLS-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Joint
Motion to Dismiss filed on August 16, 2017 (ECF No. 28);

3)

Roy Tuck v. Encore Capital Group, Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc.,

11

Midland Funding LLC, HSBC Bank, Verizon Wireless, Experian Info.

12

Solutions Inc., Capital One Bank, Case No. 16-cv-293-DMS-MDD

13

(S.D. Cal.), Joint Motion to Dismiss with respect to Encore and both

14

Midland defendants filed on April 11, 2016 (ECF No. 7), Joint Motion

15

to Dismiss with respect to Cellco Partnership d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless

16

filed on August 24, 2016 (ECF No. 45), settled with Experian on

17

September 19, 2016 (ECF No. 47), agreed to dismiss HSBC Bank on

18

October 13, 2016 (ECF No. 50), and settled with Capital One Bank on

19

October 27, 2016 (ECF No. 54);

20

4)

Roy Tuck v. Merrick Bank Corp, Equifax Inc., Trans Union LLC,

21

Experian Info. Solutions Inc., Case No. 16-cv-877-BEN-KSC (S.D.

22

Cal.), reached a settlement with Experian on August 17, 2016 (ECF No.

23

19), Joint Motion to Dismiss Trans Union filed on August 23, 2016 (ECF

24

No. 17), and reached a settlement agreement with remaining defendants

25

October 19, 2016 (ECF No. 25);

26

5)

Deborah Tuck v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., Case No. 15-cv-2036-

27

MMA-MDD (S.D. Cal.), Joint Motion to Dismiss filed on April 12,

28

2016 (ECF No. 14);
–2–

17cv1720

1

6)

Deborah Tuck v. Am. Capitol Enterprises, Case No. 15-cv-2042-CAB-

2

RBB (S.D. Cal.), Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed on December 20,

3

2015 (ECF No. 9);

4

7)

Deborah Tuck v. Portfolio Recovery Assoc., LLC, HSBC Bank NA,

5

Equifax Inc., Trans Union LLC, Experian Info. Solutions Inc., Case No.

6

16-cv-684-JAH-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Joint Motion to Dismiss Trans Union

7

on August 23, 2016 (ECF No. 32), settled with Experian on September

8

19, 2016 (ECF No. 33), agreed to dismiss HSBC Bank on October 13,

9

2016 (ECF No. 37), and settled with Portfolio Recovery Associates on

10
11

April 20, 2017 (ECF No. 63);
8)

Deborah Tuck v. Merrick Bank Corp., Equifax Inc., Trans Union LLC,

12

Experian Info. Solutions Inc., Case No. 16-cv-917-JAH-MDD (S.D.

13

Cal.), reached an agreement with Experian on August 22, 2016 (ECF

14

No. 8) and notified of settlement with remaining defendants on October

15

19, 2016 (ECF No. 14);

16

9)

17
18

Deborah Tuck v. Calvary Portfolio Services, Case No. 16-cv-918-AJBMDD (S.D. Cal.), settled on November 2, 2016 (ECF No. 15);

10)

Richard Caruso v. Encore Capital Group, Midland Credit Mgmt. Inc.,

19

Midland Funding LLC, T-Mobile, Equifax Inc., Case No. 16-cv-586-

20

BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal.), settled with T-Mobile on May 17, 2016 (ECF No.

21

11) and settled with Equifax on November 2, 2016 (ECF No. 15); and

22

11)

Richard Caruso v. Merchants Credit Ass’n, Equifax Inc., Trans Union

23

LLC, Experian Info. Solutions Inc., Case No. 16-cv-895-BAG-AGS

24

(S.D. Cal.), settled with Experian and Equifax on July 21, 2016 (ECF

25

No. 11).

26

II.

27

Under 28 U.S.C. §1915(a), a litigant who is unable to pay the fee or give

28

security needed to commence a legal action because of indigency may petition a court

ANALYSIS

–3–

17cv1720

1

to proceed without making such payment. The determination of indigency falls

2

within the district court’s discretion. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Adv. Council

3

v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194

4

(1993) (holding that “Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise

5

its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s

6

requirement of indigency”). It is well-settled that a party need not be completely

7

destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331,

8

339-40 (1948). To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1915(a), “an affidavit [of

9

poverty] is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give

10

security for costs … and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the

11

necessities of life.” Id. at 339 (internal quotations omitted). At the same time,

12

however, “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds

13

are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense…the remonstrances of a suitor

14

who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v.

15

Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984).

16

District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant

17

can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See e.g., Stehouwer

18

v. Hennessey, 841 F. Supp. 316, 321 (N.D. Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other

19

grounds by, Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that the

20

district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring a partial fee payment from a

21

prisoner who had a $14.61 monthly salary and who received $100 per month from

22

his family). Moreover, “[i]n forma pauperis status may be acquired and lost during

23

the course of litigation.” Wilson v. Dir. of Div. of Adult Institutions, No. CIV

24

S−06−0791, 2009 WL 311150, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009) (citing Stehouwer, 841

25

F. Supp. at 321);

26

C−93−1479−VRW, C−94−4162−VRW, 1995 WL 396860, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 29,

27

1995) (holding that a plaintiff who was initially permitted to proceed IFP should be

28

required to pay his $120 filing fee out of a $900 settlement). Finally, the facts as to

see also Allen v. Kelly, Nos. C−91−1635−VRW,

–4–

17cv1720

1

the affiant’s poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness, and

2

certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981).

3

In his motion to proceed IFP, Mr. Tuck admits receiving some settlements in

4

his previously filed cases but adds that they “have been meager at best.” (ECF No.

5

2.) However, by this court’s reckoning, Mr. Tuck and his wife have received

6

settlements from at least fifteen defendants, some to settle multiple cases. If the

7

settlements exceed the $400 filing fee, then it may be that the Tucks can afford to

8

“pull their own oar” and it would not be appropriate to waive the filing fee. Therefore,

9

the court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Motion for IFP status (ECF No. 2).

10

If Mr. Tuck chooses to refile the motion to proceed IFP, he should specifically

11

list the settlement amounts from each of the following defendants and explain why

12

these settlement amounts cannot be used to pay the filing fee in this case:

13

 American Capitol Enterprises (Case No. 15-cv-2042);

14

 Calvary Portfolio Services (Case No. 16-cv-918);

15

 Capital One Bank (Case No. 16-cv-293);

16

 DirecTV (Case No. 16-cv-160);

17

 Encore Capital Group (Case No. 16-cv-293);

18

 Equifax (Case Nos. 16-cv-684, 16-cv-877, 16-cv-917);

19

 Experian Information Solutions Inc. (Case Nos. 16-cv-293, 16-cv-684,

20

16-cv-877, 16-cv-917);

21

 HSBC Bank (Case Nos. 16-cv-293, 16-cv-684);

22

 Merrick Bank Corp. (Case Nos. 16-cv-877, 16-cv-917);

23

 Midland Credit Management, Inc. (Case Nos. 16-cv-293; 15-cv-2036);

24

 Midland Funding LLC (Case No. 16-cv-293);

25

 Portfolio Recovery Associates (Case No. 16-cv-684);

26

 Receivables Performance Management (Case No. 15-cv-1377);

27

 Trans Union LLC (Case Nos. 16-cv-684, 16-cv-877, 16-cv-917);

28

 Verizon Wireless (Case No. 16-cv-293); and
–5–

17cv1720

1



Any other court settlement received by him or his wife.

2

III.

3

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Mr. Tuck’s Motion to

4

Proceed IFP, (ECF No. 2), and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the

5

Complaint. Pursuant to this order, Plaintiff is granted leave for thirty days to pay the

6

filing fee required to maintain this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, or to submit

7

additional documentation regarding his financial status.

8

CHOOSES TO FILE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING HIS

9

POVERTY, HE MUST ATTACH A COPY OF THIS ORDER. Plaintiff is

10

advised to use Form AO 239 and include the information requested by the Court

11

above should he choose to file additional documentation regarding his financial

12

status. Finally, Plaintiff is reminded that an IFP application is made under penalty

13

of perjury, and any false statements may result in dismissal of his claims,

14

imprisonment of not more than five years, or a fine. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621, 3571.

15

CONCLUSION

IF PLAINTIFF

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

DATED: September 12, 2017

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–6–

17cv1720