1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEVON ALVIN PHILLIPS, Case No.: 24-CV-1818 TWR (DDL)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED 14 SGT. P. WHITE, BRYAN SISON IN FORMA PAUPERIS (CV1269), CORPORAL N. HICKS, and 15 CHULA VISTA POLICE (ECF No. 2) 16 DEPARTMENT, 17 Defendants. 18

19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Devon Alvin Phillips’s Complaint for a Civil 20 Case (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1) against Defendants Sergeant P. White, Officer Bryan Sison, 21 Corporal N. Hicks, and the Chula Vista Police Department, as well as Plaintiff’s 22 Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees of Costs (“IFP Mot.,” 23 ECF No. 2). Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights 24 when they arrested him on September 28, 2023, and detained him until he was released on 25 October 1, 2023. (See generally Compl.) He seeks $750,000 in compensation for violation 26 of his civil rights under

, violation of his due process rights under 27 California Penal Code section 849(a), and defamation of character. (See

.) 28 / / / 1 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 2 United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay filing and 3 administration fees totaling $402.1

(a). A court may, however, in its 4 discretion, allow a plaintiff to proceed without paying these fees if the plaintiff seeks leave 5 to proceed IFP by submitting an affidavit demonstrating the fees impose financial hardship. 6 See

(a); Escobedo v. Applebees,

(2015). Although 7 the statute does not specify the qualifications for proceeding IFP, the plaintiff’s affidavit 8 must allege poverty with some particularity. Escobedo,

. Granting a 9 plaintiff leave to proceed IFP may be proper, for example, when the affidavit demonstrates 10 that paying court costs will result in a plaintiff’s inability to afford the “necessities of life.” 11

The affidavit, however, need not demonstrate that the plaintiff is destitute.

12 Here, Plaintiff’s affidavit indicates that, although he was previously earning 13 approximately $3,000 per month through an unknown date, he is currently unemployed. 14 (See IFP Mot. at 1–2, 5.) Plaintiff does not inform the Court, however, whether he has any 15 cash in bank accounts, (see id. at 2), or other assets. (See id. at 3.) Further, aside from $20 16 in monthly laundry and dry-cleaning costs, it is unclear what monthly expenses Plaintiff 17 must pay, if any. (See id. at 4–5.) Because Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient information 18 from which the Court can determine whether payment of the filing fee would result in his 19 inability to afford the necessities of life, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 20 Plaintiff’s IFP Motion (ECF No. 2). See, e.g., Maleka-Ndandu v. Elite Sec. Staffing, No. 21 23-CV-1100-GPC-JLB,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2023) (denying 22 without prejudice IFP motion that was “incomplete and self-contradictory”). Should 23 Plaintiff wish to proceed, within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order, he must 24 either (1) prepay the entire $402 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (2) complete 25

26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of 27 $52. See

(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2020)). The additional $52 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave 28 | file another IFP Motion that includes a fuller accounting of his assets and monthly 2 ||income and expenses. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: October 11, 2024 [5d 14 6 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28