Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00556/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00556-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

SAMUEL W. GIBBS III,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv556-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

SHARI L. KUGLER, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Samuel W. Gibbs III, proceeding pro se, filed his complaint along with a

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The IFP motion, however, is based on

inconsistent financial information. It says, for example, that he earns $7,000 to $8,000 year

year plus an estimated $21,000 in tips. But it also says his take-home pay is from zero to

$100 every two weeks. Assuming the higher rate of pay is correct, his monthly pay is just

over $2,400. Out of that, he says he pays $450 per month for housing, $200 per month for

utilities, $300 per month for “work + food,” $700 per month to repay a loan from his 401(k),1

The IFP motion gives no details about this loan, its term, or whether the monthly 1

payment can be adjusted. Frequently, for example, loans from funds in a 401(k) plan

participant’s account can be re-amortized to reduce the payment amount. It’s also possible

the loan is nearly paid off, so that even if Gibbs owes $700 on it this month, he might shortly

owe nothing. It is up to an IFP applicant to state the facts with “particularity, definiteness and

certainty.” See United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9 Cir. 1981). th

- 1 - 14cv556

Case 3:14-cv-00556-LAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/14/14 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

$250 per month in child support, and $150 per month for health insurance, plus an

unspecified amount of support for his son. He also has $200 cash in a bank account.

2

The application fails to show that Gibbs cannot pay or give security for the filing fee,

and still provide himself and his dependents with the necessities of life. See Adkins v. E. I.

DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Instead, it appears he may be able

to pay for the necessities of life and still have some money let over with which to pay the

filing fee. But the facts are so contradictory that it’s also possible he can’t, and has simply

made an error. The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Even if the Court were to grant Gibbs’ motion to proceed IFP, it would be required to

screen his complaint and to dismiss it, to the extent it failed to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court

is also obligated to examine its own jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary, and to dismiss the

complaint if jurisdiction is lacking. See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939,

954 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). 

The complaint doesn’t identify the basis for this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction, and

therefore violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 8's “short and plain statement” rule. Its factual allegations

pertain to a child custody dispute spanning the late 1980s through March of 2001. The Court

has no jurisdiction over this, both because it’s almost certain any statute of limitations would

have passed by now, and also because under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court has

no jurisdiction to hear de facto appeals of state court judgments. See Reusser v. Wachovia

Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 858–59 (9th Cir. 2008). 

The only other factual allegation is that in February of 2014, Gibbs’ “income tax check

was sent to San Diego Department of Child Support . . . .” Apparently what Gibbs means is

that his income tax refund was garnished, in order to pay child support arrears. If Gibbs

believes this was unlawful, he hasn’t shown why. Federal law authorizes garnishment of

federal tax refunds to pay for past-due child support. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 664. If there was

It’s unclear whether this refers to the $250 Gibbs pays each month for child support, 2

or if he is supporting two sons.

- 2 - 14cv556

Case 3:14-cv-00556-LAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/14/14 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

anything irregular or illegal about the garnishment, Gibbs hasn’t alleged what that was. The

fact that he disagrees with the child support order entered over a decade ago can’t serve as

a basis for relief in this Court, and the Court has no power to vacate or modify that order.

The complaint is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a

claim. If Gibbs believes he can amend to cure the defects this order has identified, he may

file an amended complaint by the close of business on March 31, 2014. Before doing so,

he must also either pay the filing fee or file a renewed IFP motion showing that he is entitled

to proceed IFP. If he does not do both within the time permitted, this action will be dismissed

without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 13, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv556

Case 3:14-cv-00556-LAB-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/14/14 Page 3 of 3