Baize v. United States District Court, Southern District of California

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEBBIE BAIZE, Case No. 21-cv-01262-BAS-KSC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITH 12 PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S v. AMENDED IFP APPLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant.

17 Plaintiff Debbie Baize filed this action on July 14, 2021 against the United States District Court, Southern District of California. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)1 Plaintiff also concurrently filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Motion”) and a Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) The Court denied the IFP Motion, finding that Plaintiff had the ability to pay the filing fee based on her income (her disability income of $2,141.00 and her deceased spouse’s disability income of the same amount) and expenses. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff then filed an untitled document stating that her income 26 1 Here, Plaintiff here states vaguely that her case relates to her seven-year sentence in state prison for a wrongful conviction. The Court notes that Plaintiff has previously raised claims in several cases stemming from her incarceration, which were dismissed with prejudice. See Debbie Baize v. Lloyd Burton Austin, Case No. 3:16-cv-01893-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016), Order Dismissing Action, ECF No. || from disability is not $2,141.00 but is instead $1,141.00, which the Court construes as an amended IFP application. (ECF No. 6.)

3 Even considering this lower amount, Plaintiff's disability income of $1,141.00, |}combined with her spouse’s disability income of $2,141.00 (which Plaintiff has not || corrected), still yields an income that sufficiently exceeds Plaintiff's expenses such that ||she can pay the filing fee in this action. This is true even where the Court assumes her ||spouse’s disability income also totals only $1,141.00—although Plaintiff does not make || this clarification.

9 Accordingly, because Plaintiff's amended financial information does not indicate || that requiring Plaintiff to pay the required $400 fee would impair her ability to obtain the 11 necessities of life, Adkins v. E.. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948), the ||Court still finds that Plaintiff has the means to prepay the required filing fee without ||sacrifice to any other expenses. The Court therefore DENIES WITH PREJUDICE || Plaintiff’s amended IFP application. To proceed with this case, Plaintiff must pay the filing || fee in full on or before August 9, 2021.

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 / .

18 || DATED: July 26, 2021 Cyl q | Hiohea A 19 United States District Judge