1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 MARIA HERTA, Case No. 22-cv-1679-BAS-BGS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER: 12 v. (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 APPLICATION TO PROCEED CRAIG WIBLEMO, CHRISSY IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 5) 14 HUNSAKER, SHARNITA MOORE, (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 15 Defendants. PREJUDICE (ECF No. 1) 16

17 On October 27, 2022, Plaintiff Maria Herta, proceeding pro se, commenced this 18 action. (ECF No. 1.) The same day, Plaintiff also filed an application seeking leave to 19 proceed without prepaying fees or costs, also known as proceeding in forma pauperis 20 (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s first IFP application without prejudice 21 because Plaintiff failed to adequately fill out the IFP application form. (ECF No. 4.) For 22 the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s second application to proceed 23 IFP (ECF No. 5) and DISMISSES the Complaint with prejudice. 24 I. IFP Application 25 Under

, an indigent litigant who is unable to pay the fees required 26 to commence a legal action may petition a court to proceed without making such 27 prepayment. The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. Cal. 1 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of indigency”), rev’d on other 2 grounds,

(1993). 3 It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma 4 pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

, 339–40 (1948). To 5 satisfy the requirements of

(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient 6 which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and 7 still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.”

at 339 8 (internal quotations omitted). At the same time, however, “the same even-handed care must 9 be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public 10 expense, . . . the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material 11 part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe,

(D.R.I. 1984). 12 District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant can pay 13 the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., Olivares v. Marshall, 14

(9th Cir. 1995) (finding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in 15 requiring a partial fee payment from a prisoner who had a $14.61 monthly salary and who 16 received $110 per month from family). The facts as to the affiant’s poverty must be stated 17 “with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” United States v. McQuade,

938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Jefferson v. United States,

(9th Cir. 19 1960)). 20 Having read and considered Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails 21 to meet the requirements for IFP status under

. Despite the Court’s 22 previous order denying IFP (ECF No. 4), Plaintiff fails to cure many of the deficiencies in 23 her first IFP application. Regarding her income, she states only “yes” under “Self- 24 employment,” rather than stating a dollar amount. (ECF No. 2 at 1.) Her total month income 25 is left blank, though later she writes she is not paid in the course of her self-employment. 26 (Id. 1–2, 6.) The cash holdings section is blank, stating only “N/A” under “Type of 27 account.” (Id. at 2.) The only apparent source of income is money owed to Plaintiff in an 1 amount of $3000 per month, and Plaintiff leaves blank the “person owing you or your spouse money” field. (Id.) Under expenses, Plaintiff marks “X” next to the food, clothing, 2 laundry and dry-cleaning, transportation, and recreation fields but again fails to estimate a 3 dollar value for those expenses. (Id. at 4–5.) Plaintiff lists total monthly expenses as 4 “$4000.” (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff checks the “Yes” box in question 9, which asks, “Do you 5 expect any major changes to your monthly income or expenses or in your assets or 6 liabilities during the next 12 months?” (Id. at 5.) The form states, “If yes, describe on an 7 attached sheet,” but Plaintiff fails to attach a description. (Id.) 8 It is not apparent how Plaintiff is obtaining the necessities of life, and in turn whether 9 this source of funds—if it exists—can cover the required filing fee in this action. The 10 application is devoid of any detail as to how Plaintiff covers the listed expenses. (Id. at 1– 11 2.) As a result, the Court can draw no conclusions from the incomplete IFP application. 12 The application does not indicate that requiring Plaintiff to pay the required $400 fee would 13 impair her ability to obtain the necessities of life and therefore is denied. 14 II. IFP Application 15 For the following reasons, the Court determines Plaintiff’s claim does not pass 16 muster under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8, and accordingly, dismisses her 17 Complaint. 18 19 A. Legal Standard 20 Under

(e)(2)(B)(i), a court must sua sponte dismiss an action where 21 the plaintiff is proceeding IFP if the court determines that the action “is frivolous or 22 malicious.”

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). In addition to the grounds for a sua sponte dismissal set 23 out in § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court may also dismiss a complaint for failure to comply 24 with Rule 8 if it fails to provide the defendant fair notice of the wrongs allegedly 25 committed. See McHenry v. Renne,

, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 1996) 26 (upholding Rule 8(a) dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with 27 redundancy, and largely irrelevant”); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc.,

, 1058–59 (9th Cir. 2011) (collecting Ninth Circuit cases upholding Rule 8 dismissals where pleadings were “confusing,” “largely irrelevant,’ “distracting, 5 ambiguous, and unintelligible,’ “highly repetitious,’ and “consist[ing] of 3 incomprehensible rambling”). Rule 8 requires that each pleading include a “short and plain 4 || Statement of the claim,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and that “each allegation must be simple, 5 concise, and direct,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

, 677-78 6 (2009). 7 B. Analysis g Plaintiff's Complaint borders on incomprehensible. It begins as follows: 9 Independent study contract specifically said” California Education code (ED) 517744 thru61749.6 inclusive” serves only the U.S corporation agencies in 10 Dept of Edu, public schools their charter employee I find that pretty offencive. ll Hat about the private person that do homeschool , don’t they have bills, don’t they have rights to work, why private individual is excluded from benefits . . 12 . Doe Process Violation, First Amendment right violation Amd 14.8 1.3.3.2 13 liberty of contract, free to education.” (Compl. at 2.) 14 |! The Complaint goes on to seemingly allege fraud against Defendants, but it is impossible 15 |! for the Court to decipher the allegations. Additionally, the Court cannot discern any details 16 |! or particularities with respect to the alleged fraud. Simply put, the Complaint fails to give 17 || Defendants “fair notice of what [P]laintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests 18 |! in order to enable [Defendants] to prepare an answer . . . , and to identify the nature of this 19 Il case.” See Isidro Mejia v. N.Y. Police Dep't, 1:16-cv-9706-GHW,

, at 20 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2019) (quoting Middleton v. United States,

, at *2 71 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2012)). For these reasons, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to comply with 22 8 and, therefore, 1s dismissed. 23 In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP. 24 || (ECF No. 5.) The Court also DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs Complaint *> under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. (ECF No. 1.) 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. || DATED: January 5, 2023 (yitlug (Aaghan 6 28 How. Cynthia Bashant United States District Judge