Tetzner v. Hazel et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: The Application for Leave to Proceed in forma Pauperis 1 is DENIED. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO PAY the statutory filing fee of $400.00 for this action by 9/14/2018. F ailure to pay the filing fee may result in dismissal of this case without further notice. The Motion to File Document Under Seal 5 is GRANTED. Motion for Interlineation 10 is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion to Compel Disclosure of Sealed Document 12 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

RANDALL L. TETZNER,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00459-EJL

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

v.
CHRISTA HAZEL, Former Trustee
President, Coeur d’Alene School District
271; TAMBRA PICKFORD, CASEY
MORRISROE, TOM HEARN, DAVE
EUBANKS, Trustees, Coeur d’Alene
School District 271; MATT
HANDELMAN, Former Superintendent,
Coeur d’Alene School District 271;
COEUR D’ALENE SCHOOL
DISTRICT 271; CITY OF COEUR
D’ALENE, IDAHO; COEUR D’ALENE
POLICE DEPARTMENT; LEE R.
WHITE, Chief of Police, Coeur d’Alene
Police Department, JAY WILHELM,
CRYSTAL SHAW, BUHL, Detectives,
Coeur d’Alene Police Department; JOHN
DOES 1 & 2, Coeur d’Alene Police
Officers; JOHN DOES 3-100,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court in the above entitled matter are the Plaintiff Randall Tetzner’s
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Complaint, and related Motions. The Court
finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record.
Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court conclusively

finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, this
matter is decided on the record.
ANALYSIS
1.

In Forma Pauperis Standard of Review
All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the

United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of
$400.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay
the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir.
2009); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (“any court of the United States may authorize the
commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal,
... without prepayment of fees or security therefor.”).
In order to qualify for IFP status under § 1915, the plaintiff must submit an
Application and Affidavit showing he or she lacks sufficient funds to pay the filing fee and
that the suit is not frivolous or malicious. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th
Cir. 2015). An affidavit is sufficient where it states that the plaintiff “cannot because of his
[or her] 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. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S.
331, 339 (1948). A plaintiff need not demonstrate they are absolutely destitute in order to
meet the requirements of the statute. Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234; see also Adkins, 335 U.S.
at 339 (Litigants are not required to contribute their “last dollar” or “make themselves and
their dependents wholly destitute.”). Nonetheless, the affidavit must “state the facts as to

affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v.
McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Escobedo, supra. Motions to
proceed in forma pauperis under § 1915 are left to the sound discretion of the trial court
and are granted only in exceptional circumstances where the movant has made the requisite
showing. Id.
2.

Discussion
Mr. Tetzner’s IFP Application includes an affirmation stating he is unable to pay

the costs of these proceedings. (Dkt. 1.) The Application sets forth Mr. Tetzner and his
spouse’s expected monthly income ($3,000.00), expenses ($3,970.00), assets (home
($125,000), bank accounts ($2,501.83), and two vehicles ($450.00)), and liabilities ($5,500
medical bills). Mr. Tetzner has three children; two are minors and one is an adult with sever
autism. The Application is further supported by two sealed documents describing other
expected expenses and circumstances.1 The first document details Mr. Tetzner’s monthly
costs relating to medical and household bills, the care of his children, and the impact of his
own disability on his employment options. (Dkt. 6.) The second document, provides further
information about the household’s financial circumstances. (Dkt. 9.) Having considered
the Application and supporting materials filed in this matter, the Court finds that Mr.
Tetzner does not qualify for IFP status in this case.

1

Plaintiff has moved to file two supporting documents under seal. (Dkt. 5, 6, 9.) Defendants have
filed a Motion to Compel Disclosure of one of the documents (Dkt. 12.) The Court grants the
Motion to File Document Under Seal. Both documents relate to the Plaintiff’s IFP Application and
contain private personal financial and medical information unrelated to the substance of the
allegations made in the Complaint.

In determining what level of income constitutes poverty for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1), the Court considered the poverty guidelines set by the United States
Department of Health and Human Services as one measure. Those guidelines set the 2018
poverty level for a family of five at $29,420 annually. See 83 Fed. Reg. 2642, 2643 (Jan.
18, 2018).2 The household’s annual income as reflected on the IFP Application is
approximately $36,000 which places Mr. Tetzner above the guidelines’ poverty level. The
Court has also considered the household expenses and hardships discussed in the filings
which Mr. Tetzner represents exceed their monthly income. (Dkt. 1, 6, 9.) While the Court
is sympathetic to Mr. Tetzner’s financial circumstances, the balance of his household’s
expected monthly incomes, expenses, and assets put him above the poverty requirement
needed to qualify for IFP status. Mr. Tetzner and his spouse are both employed. While their
wages are modest and there have been some lapses in salary (Dkt. 6), their joint incomes
are above the poverty guidelines. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1236 (Courts may consider
the income of an IFP applicant’s spouse if a reasonable inquiry into the spouse’s assets and
income establishes that those assets and income are available to the IFP applicant.). In
addition, Mr. Tetzner owns a home, two vehicles, and has money in his bank accounts.
Taking all of these considerations into account, Court finds Mr. Tetzner does not qualify
for IFP status because the household income and assets indicate he is able to pay the filing
fee in this case.

2

The 2018 Poverty Guidelines are available from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services at http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines.

For these reasons, the IFP Application is denied. Mr. Tetzner is directed to pay the
initial filing fee of $400.00 on or before September 14, 2018. The Court expressly notifies
Mr. Tetzner that failure to timely pay the filing fee as directed herein may result in
dismissal of this case without further notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).3
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1)

The Application for Leave to Proceed in forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1) is

DENIED. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO PAY the statutory filing fee of $400.00 for this
action on or before September 14, 2018. Failure to pay the filing fee may result in
dismissal of this case without further notice.
3)

The Motion to File Document Under Seal (Dkt. 5) is GRANTED.

4)

Motion for Interlineation (Dkt. 10) is GRANTED.

5)

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Disclosure of Sealed Document. (Dkt. 12) is

DENIED.
DATED: August 15, 2018
_________________________
Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U.S. District Judge

3

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Interlineation to add three sentences to the Complaint. (Dkt. 10.)
Defendants filed a response in opposition. (Dkt. 13.) Given the early stage of these proceedings
and the fact that the request was made within the time in which Plaintiff could have filed an
amended complaint, the Court will grant the Motion for Interlineation. Defendants may still
challenge the sufficiency of the additions as well as the entirety of the pleadings on a later Motion
if the filing fee is paid and the case proceeds.