Marinkovic v. Cockerham
Filing
7
Order: (1) Denying Motion to Seal IFP Application; and (2) Denying Application to Proceed IFP.Plaintiff must pay the filing fee for each case or submit adequate proof of his inability to do so no later than May 30, 2024. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 05/09/2024. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mjw)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
MELVIN MARINKOVIC,
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
Case No. 23-cv-01279-BAS-JLB
ORDER:
v.
(1) DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
IFP APPLICATION; AND
KIMBERLY P. COCKERHAM,
Defendant.
17
(2) DENYING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IFP
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MELVIN MARINKOVIC,
Case No. 23-cv-01280-BAS-JLB
Plaintiff,
ORDER:
v.
(1) DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
IFP APPLICATION; AND
MARIA DANILYCHEV,
Defendant.
(1) DENYING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IFP
26
27
28
-1-
23cv1079 | 23cv1280
1
These cases are just two of many lawsuits filed by self-represented Plaintiff Melvin
2
Marinkovic. In both cases, Plaintiff moves to proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)—
3
without paying the filing fee.
Plaintiff also moves to seal his IFP Applications.
4
The Court addressed the same requests in one of Plaintiff’s other matters—
5
Marinkovic v. Liberty Mutual Holding Co., Case No. 23-cv-1084-BAS-JLB. After the
6
Court denied Plaintiff’s requests, he filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit
7
then dismissed his appeal because it was not substantial enough to warrant further review.
8
For the following reasons, the Court reaches the same conclusions in these cases and
9
10
denies Plaintiff’s Motions to Seal and his Applications to Proceed IFP.
I.
Motions to Seal
11
Alongside each of Plaintiff’s IFP Applications, he submits a motion to seal that
12
application on the ground it contains information concerning his finances, which he wants
13
to protect from public view. Although only several paragraphs of the Motions to Seal
14
contain general information concerning Plaintiff’s finances, they, too, were filed under
15
seal. As explained in the Court’s decision in Case No. 23-cv-1084, Plaintiff’s financial
16
information is not related to the merits of the case.
17
demonstrate is that “good cause” exists to seal his IFP Applications. See Ctr. for Auto
18
Safety Chrysler Grp., LLC , 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–98, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016). However,
19
Because Plaintiff does not provide reasons why his basic financial information—proffered
20
for the purpose of obtaining public funding for his litigation expenses—should be shielded
21
from public view, his Motions to Seal the IFP Applications are denied.
22
II.
Therefore, all Plaintiff must
Motions to Proceed IFP
23
All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the
24
United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. See
25
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the
26
entire fee only if he is granted IFP status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v.
27
Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177
28
(9th Cir. 1999).
-2-
23cv1079 | 23cv1280
1
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, indigency is the benchmark for whether a plaintiff may
2
proceed IFP. The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s sound
3
discretion. See Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding
4
that “[s]ection 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion
5
in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement on indigency”),
6
rev’d on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). A party need not be completely destitute to
7
satisfy the IFP indigency threshold. See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335
8
U.S. 331, 339–40. To qualify for IFP status, “an affidavit is sufficient which states that
9
one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and still be able to
10
provide himself and the dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339.
11
However, “care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to
12
underwrite, at public expense, . . . the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in
13
whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848,
14
850 (D.R.I. 1984). District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the
15
applicant can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See Skyler v.
16
Saul, No. 19-CV-1581-NLS, 2019 WL 4039650, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2019).
17
Plaintiff attests that he has not earned any income over the past year through
18
employment, property ownership, interest and dividends, gifts, alimony, or child support,
19
and that he does not expect to earn any income from those sources in the foreseeable future.
20
However, his IFP Application in Case No. 23-cv-1279 is incomplete and missing the
21
remaining pages. Hence, this IFP Application is denied.
22
Plaintiff’s IFP Application in Case No. 23-cv-1280 includes the missing pages, but
23
it is likewise insufficient. For example, Plaintiff does not specify any retirement or
24
disability income he receives. The Court is troubled, however, because his Motions to Seal
25
indicate that he receives a pension. At the same time, Plaintiff’s IFP Application states he
26
receives no financial support whatsoever yet survives while incurring at least $990 in
27
expenses per month. Overall, Plaintiff fails to “provide sufficient credible support that [he]
28
is unable to afford the costs of this litigation.” See, e.g., Adeyinka v. Walmart, No. 3:23-3-
23cv1079 | 23cv1280
1
CV-393-JR, 2023 WL 3027318, at *1 (D. Or. Apr. 11, 2023). Therefore, the Court likewise
2
denies the IFP Application in Case No. 23-cv-1280.
3
III.
Conclusion
4
In sum, the Court:
5
1.
DENIES Plaintiff’s Motions to Seal his IFP Applications.
6
2.
DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s IFP Applications.
7
3.
DIRECTS the Clerk to file on the docket of each respective case
8
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal his IFP Application, and (2) the IFP Application
9
itself.
10
4.
ORDERS that Plaintiff must pay the filing fee for each case or submit
11
adequate proof of his inability to do so no later than May 30, 2024. Plaintiff
12
is warned that if he fails to do so, the Court will dismiss these actions.
13
Plaintiff is also reminded that any IFP Application must be signed under
14
penalty of perjury and address all his assets and sources of money. See 28
15
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see also Civ. L.R. 3.2(a).
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
DATED: May 9, 2024
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
23cv1079 | 23cv1280
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?