1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OUDREE ELLIS-SANDERS, et al., Case No. 24-cv-00408-BAS-SBC

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING WITHOUT 14 GUARDIAN PIAZZA D’ORO LLC, et PREJUDICE APPLICATION TO al., 15 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Defendants. (ECF No. 2); AND 16 (2) DENYING WITHOUT 17 PREJUDICE MOTION TO 18 APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF No. 3) 19 20

21 Plaintiff Oudree Ellis-Sanders is self-represented. She filed this lawsuit arising out 22 of a housing dispute against Defendants Guardian Piazza D’Oro LLC, FPI Management, 23 Inc.; and Todd A. Brisco and Associates, APC. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Complaint also 24 includes Oudree Ellis-Sanders’s two daughters—Stormi Sanders and a minor child, TES— 25 as parties. 26 Plaintiffs move to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)—without paying the filing 27 fee—and for appointment of counsel. (See ECF Nos. 2, 3.) For the following reasons, the 28 Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs’ requests. 1 I. Request to Proceed Without Paying the Filing Fee 2 A. Legal Standard 3 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 4 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. See 5

(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the 6 entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted IFP status pursuant to

(a). See 7 Andrews v. Cervantes,

(9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook,

(9th Cir. 1999). 9 Under

, indigency is the benchmark for whether a plaintiff may 10 proceed IFP. The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s sound 11 discretion. See Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council v. Rowland,

854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that “[s]ection 1915 typically requires the reviewing court 13 to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s 14 requirement of indigency”), rev’d on other grounds,

(1993). A party need not 15 be completely destitute to satisfy the IFP indigency threshold. See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont 16 de Nemours & Co.,

, 339–40 (1948). To qualify for IFP status, “an affidavit 17 is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for 18 costs . . . and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” 19

. However, “care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not 20 squandered to underwrite, at public expense, . . . the remonstrances of a suitor who is 21 financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 22

(D.R.I. 1984). District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP 23 applications where the applicant can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other 24 expenses. See, e.g., Skyler v. Saul, No. 19-cv-1581-NLS,

, at *3 (S.D. 25 Cal. Aug. 27, 2019). 26 27 28 1 B. Analysis 2 1. Plaintiff Oudree Ellis-Sanders 3 Plaintiff Oudree Ellis-Sanders is unemployed and states she is unable to work full- 4 time due to disability. (IFP Appl. ¶¶ 1, 11.) She receives $1,257 per month in public 5 assistance. (Id. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff lists a 2009 vehicle as her only asset. (Id. ¶¶ 4–5.) She cares 6 for her minor child with her limited income. (Id. ¶ 7.) Based on this information, the Court 7 finds Oudree Ellis-Sanders qualifies for IFP status. (ECF No. 2.) The Court assumes that 8 Plaintiff’s minor daughter, TES, would also qualify for IFP status if represented and 9 allowed to proceed with her claims. 10 2. Plaintiff Stormi Sanders 11 The fact that Oudree Ellis-Sanders qualifies for IFP status does not end the inquiry. 12 “Where there are multiple plaintiffs in a single action, the plaintiffs may not proceed in 13 forma pauperis unless all of them demonstrate inability to pay the filing fee.” Tom v. Wells 14 Fargo Bank N.A., No. CV 19-00545 JMS-KJM,

, at *1 (D. Haw. Oct. 15 31, 2019) (quoting Martinez v. Lutz,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2018)); 16 see also, e.g., Anderson v. California, No. 10 CV 2216 MMA AJB,

, at 17 *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2010) (“In addition, although only one filing fee needs to be paid per 18 case, if multiple plaintiffs seek to proceed in forma pauperis, each plaintiff must qualify 19 for IFP status.”). “Thus, each named plaintiff must submit separate applications to proceed 20 as a pauper before a court will grant multiple plaintiffs in forma pauperis status in one 21 action.” Remmert v. Newsome, No. 1:23-cv-00050-ADA-HBK,

, at *1 22 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2023). 23 Here, the Complaint identifies Stormi Sanders, Oudree Ellis Sanders’s adult 24 daughter, as a party. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Stormi Sanders “is listed on the residential lease 25 agreement” underlying this dispute, although “she maintains a residence in the County of 26 Orange.” (Id.) Only a single request to proceed IFP was filed, however. (ECF No. 2.) 27 Oudree Ellis-Sanders signed the IFP Application, and the form only includes information 28 about her. (Id.) Therefore, the Court lacks any information about whether Stormi Sanders 1 || qualifies for IFP status, and the Court must deny the request to proceed IFP. See Remmert,

, at *1. For Plaintiffs to collectively proceed IFP, Stormi Sanders must 3 ||submit her own separate, signed, and complete IFP Application to allow the Court to 4 || determine if she can proceed without paying the filing fee. 5 Further, because Plaintiffs have not yet paid the filing fee or been granted IFP status, 6 Court denies without prejudice the request for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3.) 7 \|If Plaintiffs pay the filing fee or demonstrate IFP status is appropriate, the Court will 8 address the Motion to Appoint Counsel. 9 Conclusion 10 In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the 11 || Application to Proceed IFP. (ECF No. 2.) The Court also DENIES WITHOUT 12 ||} PREJUDICE the Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF No. 3.) If Plaintiffs wish to proceed 13 || with this action, then by September 24, 2024, Plaintiffs must either: 14 A. Pay the single filing fee of $405; or 15 B. Submit a complete IFP Application signed by Stormi Sanders. She should use 16 the same “Long Form” application completed by Oudree Ellis-Sanders. 17 ||The Court cautions Plaintiffs that if they do not pay the filing fee or submit an IFP 18 || Application completed by Stormi Sanders, the Court will dismiss the action without 19 || prejudice. 20 Finally, because Stormi Sanders is representing herself, she must also sign the 21 ||Complaint for this case to proceed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). She should submit a copy 22 the signed Complaint with her complete IFP Application or any filing fee. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 || DATED: September 4, 2024 ( yi A A (Hiphan 6 26 United States District Judge 27 28 _A.