1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 JOHN RYAN, Case No.: 25-cv-1351-CAB-MMP

14 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 15 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 16 FOREMOST INSURANCE, MOTION 17 Defendants. 18 [Doc. Nos. 1, 2] 19 20 This Order addresses Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 21 [Doc. No. 2.] The Court DENIES Plaintiff's IFP motion and, after screening the 22 Complaint, [Doc. No. 1], DISMISSES the Complaint. 23 I. Motion To Proceed IFP 24 “Plaintiffs normally must pay $350 to file a civil complaint in federal district court, 25

(a), but

(a)(1) allows the district court to waive the fee, 26 for most individuals unable to afford it, by granting IFP status.” Andrews v. Cervantes, 27

(9th Cir. 2007). A court may authorize the commencement of a suit 28 without prepayment of fees if a plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all 1 his assets, showing that he is unable to pay the filing fee.

(a). The 2 determination of indigency falls within the district court's discretion. Cal. Men’s Colony 3 v. Rowland,

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

(1993). A party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont 5 de Nemours & Co.,

(1948). To satisfy the requirements of 28

(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states that one cannot 7 because of his poverty pay or give security for costs ... and still be able to provide himself 8 and dependents with the necessities of life.”

. 9 Plaintiff submits a nearly blank affidavit. [Doc. No. 2.] The Court finds that by 10 listing his total monthly income, cash, home, and expenses at a value of zero dollars, 11 Plaintiff did not sufficiently fill out the affidavit. See

The Court requires a detailed 12 description of Plaintiff’s financial status to evaluate Plaintiff’s IFP application. 13 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 14 §1915(a). 15 II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 16 As it relates to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), “subject-matter jurisdiction, because it 17 involves a court’s power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived.” United States 18 v. Cotton,

(2002). This threshold requirement “‘spring[s] from the 19 nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States’ and is ‘inflexible and without 20 exception.’” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,

, 94–95 (1998) (quoting 21 Mansfield, C. & L.M. Ry. Co. v. Swan,

(1884). Federal courts are courts 22 of limited jurisdiction and lack of jurisdiction is presumed unless proven otherwise. See 23 Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Rsrv.,

, 1225 (9th Cir. 24 1989). The Court can adjudicate subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. See Valdez v. 25 Allstate Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2004). 26 Plaintiff lists

as the cause of action but lists federal question 27 jurisdiction as the basis for the suit. Section 1033 of Title 18 of the United States Code is 28 a criminal statue for “[c]rimes by or affecting persons engaged in the business of insurance | || whose activities affect interstate commerce.” Section 1033 is neither a federal question 2 ||nor a statute Plaintiff has standing to bring a claim under. In other words, this is a law that 3 criminal prosecutor, such as a United States Attorney, could use to bring a criminal case 4 ||against someone. This statute does not provide for civil liability. Therefore, Plaintiff 5 cannot bring claims under

. 6 Il. Conclusion 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP is DENIED and the Complaint is 8 || DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 9 It is SO ORDERED. 10 ||Dated: June 2, 2025 (GR 11 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28