Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01881/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01881-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

1

3:18-cv-01881-GPC-JMA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IDWER GORGEES,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALANNA Y. OW ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-01881-GPC-JMA

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

[ECF No. 2]

On August 10, 2018, Plaintiff Idwer Gorgees (“Plaintiff”), with counsel, filed a 

Complaint for Mandamus and Other Relief. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff, an Iraqi national 

who was admitted into the United States as a refugee, seeks to compel adjudication of his 

I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, and his I-602 

Application by Refugee for Waiver of Grounds of Excludability, which Plaintiff alleges 

have been pending for approximately ten months. (Id. at 11–12.) Plaintiff concurrently

filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.)

All proceedings filed with the District Court require a filing fee unless the Court 

grants IFP status, waiving the fee. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 

1999). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may waive the filing fee if a party 

demonstrates an inability to pay by submitting an affidavit reporting all assets of the 

Case 3:18-cv-01881-GPC-JMA Document 3 Filed 08/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-01881-GPC-JMA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

individual. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); see also Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 

(9th Cir. 2015) (“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.”). 

Because Plaintiff was adjudged to be mentally incompetent to represent himself, 

(ECF. No. 1, Exh. 4), his counsel submitted a sworn declaration on his behalf stating that 

he is currently unemployed and has been detained in the custody of Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement since January 2017. (ECF No. 2, Attach. 1.) Counsel declares 

that Plaintiff held no employment before his detention; prior to that time, Plaintiff had 

been receiving government assistance as a newly-admitted refugee. (Id.) Counsel also 

avers that Plaintiff has no assets or income, and does not expect any future income while 

he remains detained. (Id.) Although Plaintiff is married, counsel states that Plaintiff is

separated from his wife and has no knowledge as to her financial situation because he is 

not permitted to have contact with her. (Id.) Thus, the Court does not consider Plaintiff’s 

wife’s assets in determining his IFP status. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235 (recognizing, 

in light of diverse marital arrangements, that in some cases “one spouse’s funds may 

simply not be available to the other spouse” for IFP purposes). In light of the above, the 

Court finds that Plaintiff demonstrates inability to pay the filing fee. 

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by 

any person proceeding IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to a mandatory and 

sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is frivolous, malicious, fails 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 

F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not 

limited to prisoners.”). Plaintiff’s allegations with respect to his request for mandamus 

relief are sufficient for the purposes of sua sponte screening under § 1915(e)(2)(B). He 

is, however, cautioned that “the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is 

cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that [a 

defendant] may choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. 

Case 3:18-cv-01881-GPC-JMA Document 3 Filed 08/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-01881-GPC-JMA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cal. 2007).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP and ORDERS

the U.S. Marshal to effect service upon all Defendants on Plaintiff’s behalf. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform 

all duties in [IFP] cases.”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01881-GPC-JMA Document 3 Filed 08/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3