Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00927/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00927-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983bv Bivens Non-Prisoner

---

1

19-CV-927-CAB-JLB

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

TIMOTHY MAPP,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

Defendant.

Case No.: 19-CV-927-CAB-JLB

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

[Doc. No. 2]

Plaintiff, a nonprisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against San Diego 

County that is effectively an appeal of state or county-level administrative decisions 

concerning the amount of child support withheld from his unemployment and disability 

insurance payments.. Plaintiff also filed an application for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”). Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a 

filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). However, the court may authorize a 

party to proceed without paying the fee if that party submits an affidavit demonstrating an 

inability to pay. 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.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). “[A] 

Case 3:19-cv-00927-CAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 05/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19-CV-927-CAB-JLB

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

plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and 

certainty.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Here, Plaintiff’s papers assert that he is currently receiving disability payments of 

$2,944.00 per month and will continue to receive such payments until he is cleared to return 

to work following heart surgery. He also owns a car valued at $800.00. Meanwhile, his 

total monthly expenses are only $1,542.00. Accordingly, the payment of the filing fee in 

this case would not prevent Plaintiff from being “able to provide himself and dependents 

with the necessities of life.” See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 

339 (1948) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP is 

therefore DENIED. 

Plaintiff shall have until June 10, 2019 to pay the requisite filing fee to maintain this 

action.1 If the filing fee is not paid by this date, the Clerk of Court shall close this case 

without further order from the Court.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2019

 

1 Plaintiff should be aware that even if he does pay the filing fee, his case may be subject to dismissal for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, under which “a party losing 

in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in 

a United States District Court based on the losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the 

loser’s federal rights.” Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005–06 (1994) (citing District of Columbia 

Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983), and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 

416 (1923)); see also Rucker v. County of Santa Clara, State of California, No. C02-5981 JSW, 2003 WL 

21440151 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2003) (dismissing complaint seeking review of garnishment of disability 

benefit payments for child support based on Rooker-Feldman doctrine). Alternatively, to the extent 

Plaintiff has not exhausted his claims concerning the propriety of the garnishment in California state court, 

this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint does not state a federal question, and the 

parties are not diverse. 

Case 3:19-cv-00927-CAB-JLB Document 3 Filed 05/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2