Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01479/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01479-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 29:754 Discrimination

---

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

GEORGE LIVELL WYNN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13CV1479-MMA (DHB)

ORDER:

DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS;

[Doc. No. 2]

DENYING REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

AS MOOT

[Doc. No. 3]

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA;

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL KAMAL D. HARRIS,

Defendants.

Plaintiff George L. Wynn, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a

complaint against Defendants the State of California, Department of Justice, and

Office of the Attorney General Kamal D. Harris1

 (“Defendants”). [Doc. No. 1.] 

Although the precise nature of Plaintiff’s claim is unclear, he appears to challenge

the constitutionality of California Penal Code section 290.5. Plaintiff

contemporaneously filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)

[Doc. No. 2], and a motion to appoint counsel. [Doc. No. 3.] 

1

 Kamala Harris is the Attorney General for the State of California. Plaintiff’s complaint

mistakenly refers to “Kamal” Harris. 

- 1 - 13cv1479

Case 3:13-cv-01479-MMA-DHB Document 5 Filed 07/01/13 Page 1 of 3
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

MOTION TO PROCEED IFP

A party instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee

of $400.2

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s

failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d

1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a

right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). 

Plaintiff’s affidavit states he is employed, but fails to state the amount of takehome salary he receives each pay period. [Doc. No. 2 at 2.] Plaintiff states he

receives $198.00 in food stamps each month. He indicates that he has no checking

or savings account and that he does not own an automobile. [Id.] Plaintiff also

indicates he has several financial obligations, including $42,000 in student loans,

$85,000 in child support payments, and over $7,000 in other debts. [Id. at 2-3.] 

Finally, Plaintiff states that he has an unidentifiable asset worth $936.00. [Id. at 3.]

 A party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis.

Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). But “the

same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not

squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the

remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull

his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). Here, the

Court finds Plaintiff’s affidavit is incomplete and does not adequately demonstrate

that he is unable to pay the fees required to maintain this action. Specifically,

Plaintiff does not indicate his take-home salary or detail his net income compared to

his monthly expenditures and ongoing debts and obligations. Thus, Plaintiff’s

2

 In addition to the filing fee of $350, the District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, effective

May 1, 2013, requires payment of an administrative fee for filing a civil action in district court of $50.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, note 14.

- 2 - 13cv1479

Case 3:13-cv-01479-MMA-DHB Document 5 Filed 07/01/13 Page 2 of 3
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

submission does not demonstrate that he lacks the financial resources or assets to

pay the costs of commencing this action. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to

proceed IFP. [Doc. No. 2.] Within twenty days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff

shall either: (a) pay the requisite $400 filing fee, or (b) file a renewed motion for IFP

containing additional information regarding whether his living expenses would

objectively prevent him from paying the costs of commencing this action. If

Plaintiff fails to timely submit payment or a renewed motion for IFP, the Court will

dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. 

Lastly, as indicated above, Plaintiff also submitted a request for appointment

of counsel. In light of the Court’s ruling on the IFP motion, the Court DENIES this

request as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 1, 2013

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv1479

Case 3:13-cv-01479-MMA-DHB Document 5 Filed 07/01/13 Page 3 of 3