Alonso v. San Diego County Sheriff Department
ORDER Denying Without Prejudice Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 2 ] and Denying as Moot Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. No. 3 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 5/6/2022. (anh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHRISTOPHER K. ALONSO,
Case No.: 3:22-cv-97-CAB-WVG
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
[Doc. No. 2] AND DENYING AS
MOOT MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL [Doc. No. 3]
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERRIFF
On January 24, 2022, Plaintiff Christopher K. Alonso filed a complaint. [Doc. No.
1.] Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. No. 2]
and a motion to appoint counsel [Doc. No. 3]. On May 6, 2022, the case was transferred
to the undersigned judge. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP
Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. See
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). However, the Court may authorize a party to proceed
without paying the filing fee if that party submits an affidavit demonstrating an inability to
pay. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where
it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.”
Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP
status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).
In his IFP application, Plaintiff claims to have no income, no cash, and no assets.
Yet Plaintiff claims to have over $2,000/month in expenses, while also living rent-free.
Moreover, the expenses include installment payments on a motor vehicle and motor vehicle
insurance, but no vehicle is listed as an asset. These unexplained discrepancies render the
application incomplete and not credible. Accordingly, based on the lack of “particularity,
definiteness and certainty” in the information provided, the Court is not persuaded that
Plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the filing fee and “still afford the necessities of life.”
Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. Therefore, Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP [Doc. No.
2] is DENIED without prejudice, and Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel [Doc. No. 3] is
DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff shall have until June 3, 2022 to either pay the filing fee, or file a new
application to proceed IFP that provides with “particularity, definiteness, and certainty” the
required information. In particular, Plaintiff shall respond truthfully, accurately, and
completely to Questions 1 - 8. If the filing fee is not paid or a renewed application to
proceed in forma pauperis is not filed by June 3, 2022, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss
the case without prejudice and terminate the action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 6, 2022
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?