Banks v. Salgado et al

Filing 4

ORDER Granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Court orders Plaintiff to reimburse the filing fee from any recovery obtained in this case, whether through settlement or trial. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 3/14/2018. (jao)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 DWIGHT BANKS, Case No.: 18-cv-0415 W (AGS) Plaintiff, 14 15 v. 16 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IFP [DOC. 2] PEDRO SALGADO dba MARCY'S MEXICAN FOOD, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 On February 22, 2018, Plaintiff Dwight Banks filed a complaint against Defendant 20 21 for violations of the American’s with Disabilities Act, among other claims. Along with 22 the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. 2]. 23 24 I. DISCUSSION 25 The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. 26 California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), reversed on 27 other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court 28 1 18-cv-0415 W (AGS) 1 to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the 2 statute’s requirement of indigency.”). 3 It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma 4 pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). To 5 satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient 6 which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs ... and 7 still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. 8 At the same time, however, “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that 9 federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, ... the remonstrances of 10 a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple 11 v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 12 District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant can 13 pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., Stehouwer v. 14 Hennessey, 851 F.Supp. 316, (N.D.Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other grounds, 15 Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that district court did not 16 abuse discretion in requiring partial fee payment from prisoner with $14.61 monthly 17 salary and $110 per month from family); Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860 at *2 (N.D. 18 Cal. 1995) (Plaintiff initially permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, later required to pay 19 $120 filing fee out of $900 settlement proceeds); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F.Supp. 129, 130 20 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (in forma pauperis application denied: “plaintiff possessed savings of 21 $450 and the magistrate correctly determined that this amount was more than sufficient to 22 allow the plaintiff to pay the filing fee in this action.”). Moreover, the facts as to the 23 affiant’s poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” 24 United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). 25 Having read and considered the papers submitted, the Court finds that based on the 26 current record, Plaintiff meets the requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 27 According to his declaration, Plaintiff receives $826 per month in disability, and has 28 monthly expenses of $1,218. (IFP App. [Doc. 2] ¶¶ 1, 8.) Additionally, according to his 2 18-cv-0415 W (AGS) 1 declaration, Plaintiff does not have any assets. (Id. ¶ 4.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s IFP 2 motion will be granted. 3 4 5 II. CONCLUSION & ORDER For the reasons addressed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 6 IFP [Doc. 2]. However, the Court further ORDERS Plaintiff to reimburse the filing fee 7 from any recovery obtained in this case, whether through settlement or trial. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 14, 2018 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 18-cv-0415 W (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?