1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELISE R. HILEMAN, Case No.: 25-CV-525 JLS (BLM)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT 14 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AND JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF 15 (2) DISMISSING WITHOUT INVESTIGATION, and CALIFORNIA PREJUDICE COMPLAINT 16 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

17 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2) 18 19 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Elise R. Hileman’s Complaint (“Compl.,” 20 ECF No. 1) and Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 21 (“IFP Appl.,” ECF No. 2). Also before the Court are Supplemental Documents filed by 22 Plaintiff, which appear to be intended as support for her Complaint.1 See ECF Nos. 3, 4. 23 Having carefully considered Plaintiff’s Complaint, Application, and the applicable law, the 24

25 1 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Documents (ECF Nos. 3, 4) are difficult to parse but as they reiterate allegations 26 from the Complaint such as those pertaining to a “right to life,” for the purposes of this Order, the Court liberally construes them as intended additions to her Complaint. However, Plaintiff is advised for the 27 future that her Complaint must be complete in and of itself and any exhibits must be attached to the 28 documents to which they belong. Any further supplemental documents without reference to which filing 1 Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s IFP Application and DISMISSES 2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint. 3 IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 4 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 5 United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405. 6

(a). In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an 7 additional administrative fee of $55. See

(a) (Judicial Conference 8 Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The 9 additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed in 10 forma pauperis. Id. 11 An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee only if the party 12 is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to

(a)(1). 13 Section 1915(a)(1) provides: 14 [A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or 15 proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, 16 by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay 17 such fees or give security therefor. 18

19 As § 1915(a)(1) does not itself define what constitutes insufficient assets to warrant IFP 20 status, the determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. See Cal. 21 Men’s Colony v. Rowland,

(9th Cir. 1991) (“Section 1915 typically 22 requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the 23 affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of indigency.”), reversed on other grounds 24 by

(1993). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where 25 it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” 26 Escobedo v. Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont 27 de Nemours & Co.,

(1948)). “One need not be absolutely destitute to 28 obtain benefits of the [IFP] statute.” Jefferson v. United States,

(9th Cir. 1 1960). “Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some 2 particularity, definiteness[,] and certainty.’” Escobedo,

. 3 The Court cannot find that Plaintiff has alleged with sufficient certainty that she 4 would be unable to afford the necessities of life should she be required to pay the requisite 5 filing fee. Plaintiff indicates she has no income apart from $200 she receives from “gifts,” 6 and no assets except a vehicle worth $3,000 in a “NJ towyard [sic].” IFP Appl. at 1–3. 7 She then alleges her only expenses are $389 for food, and $18 monthly for 8 “www.geniusencouragement.com,” which she describes as “ambition to be happy page.” 9

at 4–5. However, Plaintiff left blank the spaces available to enter how much cash she 10 has or the amount of money she has in any bank accounts or financial institutions. Id. at 3. 11 And confusingly, Plaintiff lists an employer “Hostel on 3rd” where she has been working 12 “August 2024-present,” but represents she receives $0 in gross monthly pay. Id. at 2. 13 By way of explanation for why she cannot pay the costs of these proceedings, 14 Plaintiff provides that she has a “severe condition caused by abuse, threats to life, and 15 corruption.” Id. at 5. The Court appreciates Plaintiff’s allegations of hardship; however, 16 such allegations do not explain the apparent inconsistency in her Application that she is 17 both employed and receives no income apart from $200 in gifts. Nor does Plaintiff explain 18 how she is able to pay her expenses in excess of her alleged income, and she leaves blank 19 several questions which require a response. 20 “Without further explanation, ‘[i]t is not apparent how Plaintiff is obtaining the 21 necessities of life, and in turn whether this source of funds—if it exists—can cover the 22 required filing fee in this action.’” Turner v. City of San Diego, 23 No. 23-CV-29 TWR (NLS),

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023) (quoting 24 Herta v. Wiblemo, No. 22-CV-1679-BAS-BGS,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 25 Nov. 7, 2022)). Given the internal inconsistencies presented by Plaintiff’s IFP Application 26 and the lack of detail regarding how much cash she has or money she has in financial 27 institutions, the Court finds Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden to show that her financial 28 condition warrants lifting the filing fee requirement. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 1 || Plaintiff's IFP Application. Said denial, however, is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to 2 || Plaintiff refiling an IFP application that cures the above-noted deficiencies. If Plaintiff 3 || wishes to refile her IFP application, she “should note that the IFP application specifically 4 ||instructs applicants not to leave any blanks, and to instead response [sic] ‘0,’ □□□□□□□ or 5 || ‘not applicable (N/A)’ as necessary.” Herta,

, at *2. 6 CONCLUSION 7 In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff's IFP Application (ECF No.2) is DENIED WITHOUT 9 || PREJUDICE; 10 2. Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT 11 || PREJUDICE for failure to prepay the filing fee mandated by

(a); and 12 3. Plaintiff is GRANTED an additional thirty (30) days from the date on which 13 Order is electronically docketed to either (1) pay the entire $405 statutory and 14 || administrative filing fee, or (2) file a new IFP application alleging that he is unable to pay 15 requisite fee. Should Plaintiff fail to either pay the filing fee or file a new IFP 16 || application, the Court will convert this dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint into dismissal 17 this civil action without prejudice. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: April 1, 2025 jae LL. Mammal 20 on. Janis L. Sammartino 7] United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28