Sandoval v. California Medical Facility

United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Sandoval v. California Medical Facility

Trial Court Opinion

l 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 |} LUIS SANDOVAL, Case No.: 3:21-cv-02065-RBM-KSC 12 Platt, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS 13 V. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 14 || CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, et PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 al., 16 Defendants.| [Doce. 2] 17 18 19 On December 10, 2021, Plaintiff Luis Sandoval (‘Plaintiff’) filed a complaint 20 || against California Medical Facility and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 21 ||(“Defendants”). (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the required filing fee and instead filed a 22 |)motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Motion”). (Doc. 2.) For the reasons outlined 23 || below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's IFP Motion. 24 All parties instituting a civil action in a district court of the United States, except an 25 ||application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $402. See 28 U.S.C. 26 ||§ 1914(a). But a litigant who, because of indigency, is unable to pay the required fees may 27 || petition the Court to proceed without making such payment.

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(1). The 28 of an affidavit of poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness and ]

1 ||certainty.” Escobedo v. Applebees,

787 F.3d 1226, 1234

(9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Unitec 2 || States v. McQuade,

647 F.2d 938, 940

(9th Cir. 1981)). 3 The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. Cal 4 || Men’s Colony v. Rowland,

939 F.2d 854, 858

(9th Cir. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 50¢ 5 |/U.S. 194 (1993). It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceec 6 forma pauperis. Adkins v. □□□ DuPonte de Nemours & Co.,

335 U.S. 331, 339-4

( 7 ||(1948); see also Escobedo,

787 F.3d at 1234

. To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C 8 1915(a)(1), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states that one cannot because 9 |/of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and still be able to provide[] himself anc 10 ||dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins,

335 U.S. at 339

(internal quotation: 11 |;omitted). Nevertheless, “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure tha 12 federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, . . . the remonstrance: 13 || ofa suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple 14 ||v. Ellerthorpe,

586 F. Supp. 848, 850

(D. R.I. 1984) (internal citation omitted). Court: 15 |/tend to reject IFP motions where the applicant can pay the filing fee with acceptable 16 || sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., Allen v. Kelley,

1995 WL 396860

, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal 17 June 29, 1995) (Plaintiff initially permitted to proceed IFP, but later required to pay $12( 18 || filing fee out of $900 settlement proceeds). 19 Here, Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated his entitlement to IFP status 20 ||Plaintiff attests that he is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings. (Doc. 2 at 1. 21 ||Plaintiff fails, however, to answer or provide a meaningful response to many of the 22 || questions in his affidavit, as required by the Instructions listed on page 1. (/d. at 1.) For 23 |;example, when asked to attest to his average monthly income during the past 12 months 24 || from various income sources, Plaintiff left almost all of the required fields blank. (Ud. a 25 |{1-2.) Plaintiff appears to reference in the margin an income of $110, but it is unclear □□□□ 26 || Plaintiffs affidavit the source or frequency of that income. (/d. at 1.) Plaintiff also appears 27 ||to make reference in the margin to an income of $11.60, but does not provide sufficien 28 ||information about the source of that income, or how that income factors into his average

1 |{monthly income during the past 12 months. (/d.) When asked to estimate the average 2 |;amount of money received from child support payments during the past 12 months 3 || Plaintiff left the field blank and instead wrote “Xmas Gifts” in the margin. (/d.) Similarly. 4 || when asked to list the assets which Plaintiff or his spouse owns and the average monthly 5 expenses of Plaintiff and his family, Plaintiff left all of the required dollar fields blank, anc 6 instead listed non-dollar amounts in the affidavit margins. (/d. at 3-4.) 7 Plaintiff also left blank questions concerning any money he or his spouse has in bank 8 || accounts or in any other financial institution (id. at 2), persons owing Plaintiff or his spouse 9 }|money (id. at 3), persons who rely on Plaintiff or his spouse for support (id.), whether 10 || Plaintiff expects any major changes to his monthly income or expenses during the next 12 11 |)/months (id. at 5), whether Plaintiff will be spending any money for expenses or attorney 12 in conjunction with this action (id.), and any other information that will help explair 13 he cannot pay the costs or these proceedings (id.). Because the Court finds that 14 || Plaintiff does not allege poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty,’ 15 || Escobedo,

787 F.3d at 1234

, Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis at this 16 |/time. Courts in this district have denied similar IFP applications where a litigant fails tc 17 meet his burden of demonstrating his indigence. See, e.g., Blackshire v. Buca Restaurants 18 Inc., No. 21-cv-1505-JLS-WVG,

2022 WL 36519

, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2022) 19 || (denying IFP motion where plaintiff failed to answer or provide meaningful response tc 20 |imany questions in affidavit); Aellis O. v. Connor, No. 22-cv-200-JLS-WVG,

2022 WL 21

||757432, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2022) (denying IFP motion where plaintiff failed tc 22 || answer every question in affidavit); Toussaint v. Venante, No. 22-cv-245-JLS-AGH, 2022 23 || WL 891112, at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2022) (same). 24 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's IFP Motion (Doc. 2) without prejudice. 25 later than June 6, 2022, Plaintiff must either pay the $402 filing fee required tc 26 ||commence this civil action or file a renewed IFP motion that sufficiently shows he is 27 ||entitled to IFP status. If Plaintiff fails to do either by the stated deadline, the Court will 28 || dismiss the complaint and close the case.

1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 ||DATE: May 5, 2022 (FBirmsdeUndnger )_ 4 HON. RUTH BE Z, MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown