Marroquin v. Mr. Gordon

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRANK ANTHONY MARROQUIN, Case No.: 25-cv-1075-RSH-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS MR. GORDON, Office of the Director, Department of Motor Vehicles, 15 [ECF No. 2] Defendant.

19 On April 28, 2025, plaintiff Frank Anthony Marroquin, proceeding pro se, commenced this action. ECF No. 1. On April 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. For the reasons below, the Court denies the motion to proceed IFP without prejudice.

23 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. 28 25 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed in IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court may authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of fees if the party submits an || affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing inability to pay the required filing fee.

2 ||28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it || alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life[.]”

4 || Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP ||status must allege poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” Jd.

6 || (quoting United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)).

7 In his IFP application, Plaintiff claims he has no source of income, no cash, and no || assets. ECF No. 2 at 1-3. Plaintiff does not, however, specify whether he has money in any ||bank account or other financial institution. /d. at 2. In addition, Plaintiff also claims no ||monthly expenses, instead listing EBT (which is not an expense) in this section. /d. at □□□□ |/It is unclear to the Court how Plaintiff is securing the necessities of life without any || expenses. See Ritchie v. Hill, No. 23-CV-2163 JLS (BLM), 2023 WL 8439564, at *2 (S.D. 13 Dec. 5, 2023); Turner v. City of San Diego, No. 23-CV-29 TWR (NLS), 2023 WL 14 || 163492, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023). Because Plaintiff does not provide sufficient 15 information to determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 16 Court DENIES Plaintiff's IFP motion without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed || with this action, Plaintiff must: (1) pay the filing fee of $405; or (2) file a corrected IFP || motion correcting the above deficiencies by May 28, 2025.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 || Dated: April 30, 2025 □ 21 Febut [ove 7 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge