Rhodes v. Young et al

Filing 13

ORDER REJECTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES IN LIGHT OF NEWLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION 11 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 02/24/2014. - - Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, filed December 19, 2014, is HEREBY GRANTED. (eps)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered t o receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
WILLIAM T. RHODES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SYLVIANNE YOUNG, ET AL.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
_____________________________ )

CIVIL 13-00702 LEK-BMK

ORDER REJECTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF FEES IN LIGHT OF NEWLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION
On December 19, 2013, pro se Plaintiff William T.
Rhodes (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint and Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
(“Application”).

[Dkt. nos. 1, 8.]

The application states that,

in the past twelve months, Plaintiff received “Business
consulting receipts” of $24,000 and “gifts” of $400.
[Application at 1.]
On December 27, 2013, the magistrate judge issued an
order directing Plaintiff to provide further information
regarding the business consulting receipts (“12/27/13 Order”).
[Dkt. no. 10.]

The magistrate noted that Plaintiff does not have

any dependents, and therefore Plaintiff must receive an income of
less than $13,230 per year to qualify for in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) status because that is the poverty threshold for a

single-person household in Hawai`i.

[12/27/13 Order at 2 (citing

Annual Update of the Department of Health & Human Services
Poverty Guidelines, 78 Fed. Reg. 5182-01 (Jan. 24, 2013)).]
Plaintiff’s submission was due on January 23, 2014.
Plaintiff, however, did not respond to the 12/27/13 Order by that
date, and the magistrate judge issued his Findings and
Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees on January 29, 2014 (“F&R”).

[Dkt. no. 11.]

Noting Plaintiff’s failure to provide the additional information
required by the 12/27/13 Order, the magistrate judge found that
Plaintiff’s reported annual income of $24,400 exceeded the
poverty threshold for a single-person household in Hawai`i.

The

magistrate judge therefore found that Plaintiff was not eligible
for IFP status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and recommended that
this Court deny Plaintiff’s Application.
Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s
Explanation of Yearly Income” on February 3, 2014 (“2/3/14
Explanation”).

[Dkt. no. 12.]

The 2/3/14 Explanation states

that Plaintiff received an average of $2,000 in monthly business
consulting income, and he received the last payment in November
2013.

[2/3/14 Explanation at 1.]

Further, after various

business expenses, such as office rent and the office telephone
bill, he had “income of $9,720” for the twelve-month period
[Id. at 1-2.]

before he filed the Application.

2

DISCUSSION
I.

Plaintiff’s February 3, 2014 Submission
At the outset, this Court emphasizes that the

magistrate judge gave Plaintiff the opportunity to provide the
information Plaintiff included in the 2/3/14 Explanation before
the magistrate judge issued the F&R.

Plaintiff, however, filed

the 2/3/14 Explanation ten days after the January 23, 2014
deadline.

Although Plaintiff’s 2/3/14 Explanation was untimely,

in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and because the delay did
not prejudice any other party to this action, this Court will
consider Plaintiff’s 2/3/14 Explanation as his objections to the
magistrate judge’s F&R.

This Court, however, REMINDS Plaintiff

that his pro se status does not excuse him from complying with
the procedural or substantive rules of the court.

See King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must
follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”
(citations omitted)), overruled on other grounds, Lacey v.
Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

This

Court CAUTIONS Plaintiff that any future failure to comply with
the rules of court or with court-ordered deadlines may result in
sanctions, including the possible dismissal of Plaintiff’s case.

3

II.

Plaintiff’s Eligibility for IFP Status
This Court agrees with the magistrate judge that:
A court may authorize the commencement or
prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees
by a person who submits an affidavit that the
person is unable to pay such fees. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1). “[A]n affidavit is sufficient which
states that one cannot, because of his poverty,
‘pay or give security for the costs and still be
able to provide’ himself and dependents ‘with the
necessities of life.’” Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont De
Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).

[F&R at 2 (alteration in F&R).]

This Court also agrees with the

magistrate judge that Plaintiff would be ineligible for IFP
status if his income exceeds the poverty threshold for a singleperson household in Hawai`i.
Plaintiff’s 2/3/14 Explanation establishes that the
$24,000 in annual income reported on the Application is actually
business income, the majority of which was spent on business
expenses.

Based on the 2/3/14 Explanation, this Court finds that

only $9,720 of the business income is attributable to Plaintiff
individually as income.
Insofar as Plaintiff filed his Complaint in his
personal capacity and Plaintiff’s claims relate to residential
rental disputes, this Court will not consider the income
attributable to Plaintiff’s business in determining whether
Plaintiff is eligible for IFP status in this case.

Plaintiff’s

annual income, consisting of $9,720 from the business and $400 in
gifts, is below the poverty threshold for a one-person household
4

in Hawai`i.

This Court therefore FINDS that Plaintiff qualifies

for IFP status pursuant to § 1915.
CONCLUSION
In light of the additional information in Plaintiff’s
2/3/14 Explanation, which was not available to the magistrate
judge, this Court REJECTS the magistrate judge’s Findings and
Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees, filed January 29, 2014.

Further, Plaintiff’s

Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees
or Costs, filed December 19, 2014, is HEREBY GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, February 24, 2014.

/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

WILLIAM T. RHODES VS. SYLVIANNE YOUNG, ET AL.; CIVIL 13-00702
LEK-BMK; ORDER REJECTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF FEES IN LIGHT OF NEWLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION

5