1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DOLORES KELLY, Case No.: 3:23-cv-00685-RBM-AHG

11 Plaintiff, ORDER: 12 v. (1) DENYING WITHOUT 13 PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 14 XI JINPING, TO PROCEED IN FORMA 15 Defendant. PAUPERIS; and

16 (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 17 REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF 18 COUNSEL

19 [Docs. 2, 3] 20 21

22 On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff Dolores Kelly (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Xi 23 Jinping. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff did not pay the required filing fee and instead filed a motion 24 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Motion”). (Doc. 2.) Plaintiff also filed a request for 25 appointment of counsel. (Doc. 3.) For the reasons outlined below, the Court denies both 26 motions. 27 All parties instituting a civil action in a district court of the United States, except an 28 application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $402. See 28 U.S.C. 1 § 1914(a). But a litigant who, because of indigency, is unable to pay the required fees may 2 petition the Court to proceed without making such payment.

(a)(1). The 3 facts of an affidavit of poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness and 4 certainty.” Escobedo v. Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015) (quoting United 5 States v. McQuade,

(9th Cir. 1981)). 6 The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. Cal. 7 Men’s Colony v. Rowland,

(9th Cir. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 506

(1993). It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed 9 in forma pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPonte de Nemours & Co.,

, 339-40 10 (1948); see also Escobedo,

. To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 11 § 1915(a)(1), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states that one cannot because 12 of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and still be able to provide[] himself and 13 dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins,

(internal quotations 14 omitted). 15 Here, Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated her entitlement to IFP status. 16 Plaintiff attests she is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings. (Doc. 2 at 1.) Plaintiff 17 fails, however, to answer or provide a meaningful response to many of the questions in the 18 affidavit, as required by the Instructions listed on page 1. (Id.) Plaintiff has left questions 19 one through eight, and part of twelve, entirely blank, leaving the Court with no information 20 about Plaintiff’s income sources, expenses, employment history, assets, debts, or 21 dependents. (Id. at 1–5.) Because the Court finds Plaintiff does not allege poverty “with 22 some particularity, definiteness and certainty,” Escobedo,

, Plaintiff is not 23 entitled to proceed in forma pauperis at this time. Courts in this district have denied similar 24 IFP applications where a litigant fails to meet her burden of demonstrating indigence. See, 25 e.g., Blackshire v. Buca Restaurants 2, Inc., No. 21-cv-1505-JLS-WVG,

, 26 at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2022) (denying IFP motion where plaintiff failed to answer or 27 provide meaningful response to many questions in affidavit); Aellis O. v. Connor, No. 22- 28 cv-200-JLS-WVG,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2022) (denying IFP motion 1 || where plaintiff failed to answer every question in affidavit); Toussaint v. Venante, No. 22- 2 || cv-245-JLS-AGH,

, at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2022) (same). 3 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's IFP Motion (Doc. 2) and request to 4 appoint counsel (Doc. 3) without prejudice. No later than May 18, 2023, Plaintiff must 5 |/either pay the $402 filing fee required to commence this civil action or file a renewed IFP 6 || motion that sufficiently shows she is entitled to IFP status. If Plaintiff fails to either pay 7 $402 filing fee or file a renewed IFP motion by May 18, 2023, the Court will 8 dismiss the complaint and close the case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ||DATE: April 18, 2023 _ CF Baran tiny □ HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 ee