Saofaigaalii v. Tripler Army Medical Center et al

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL re 3 , 4 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 10/22/2014. &q uot;Saofaigaalii's IFP Application and Request for Counsel are denied. Given the denial of this IFP Application, Saofaigaalii must either pay the filing fee no later than November 17, 2014, or submit a new IFP Application establishing his paup er status. Failure to do either by that date will result in the automatic dismissal of this action." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received thi s document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Toatuga M. Saofaigaalii shall be served by first class mail at the address of record on October 23, 2014. A copy of the court's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs shall be included in the mailing.

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII TOATUGA M. SAOFAIGAALII, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) TRIPLER ARMY MEDICAL CENTER, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________ ) CIVIL NO. 14-00455 SOM/KSC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL I. INTRODUCTION. On October 9, 2014, Plaintiff Toatuga M. Saofaigaalii filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (the “IFP Application”) and a Request for Appointment of Counsel (the “Request for Counsel”). ECF No. 4. ECF No. 3; The IFP Application and the Request for Counsel are denied. II. ANALYSIS. A. The IFP Application. For the court to grant the IFP Application, Saofaigaalii must establish that he is a pauper. To do so, he must submit an affidavit that includes a statement of the assets he possesses and a statement that he is unable to pay the cost of this proceeding or give security therefor. § 1915(a)(1). 28 U.S.C. Having reviewed the information provided by Saofaigaalii, the court determines that Saofaigaalii has failed to establish that he is entitled to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. The IFP Application indicates that Saofaigaalii receives $4,274.70 per month, equating to $51,296.40 per year. Given this income, Saofaigaalii is not a pauper, and nothing in the IFP Application demonstrates otherwise. The court recognizes that he lists debts and dependents, but that information does not establish his pauper status. B. Request for Counsel. Saofaigaalii requests that this court appoint him counsel under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides for the appointment of counsel in employment discrimination cases “in such circumstances as the court may deem just.” § 2000e-5(f)(1). 42 U.S.C. Because Saofaigaalii’s Complaint nowhere alleges employment discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Saofaigaalii’s case cannot possibly fall within 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). His request for counsel on that basis, therefore, is denied. III. CONCLUSION. Saofaigaalii’s IFP Application and Request for Counsel are denied. Given the denial of this IFP Application, Saofaigaalii must either pay the filing fee no later than November 17, 2014, or submit a new IFP Application establishing 2 his pauper status. Failure to do either by that date will result in the automatic dismissal of this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 22, 2014. /s/ Susan Oki Mollway Susan Oki Mollway Chief United States District Judge Saofaigaalii v. Tripler Army Medical Center, et al., Civ. No. 14-00455 SOM/KSC; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 3

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?