Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00107/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00107-0/pdf.json

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

08cv0107

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDE ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv0107-BEN (RBB)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

AND

(2) DISMISSING THE ACTION

Plaintiff Rande Ross (“Plaintiff”) filed the present action against the County of San

Diego, the Sheriff’s Department and a Deputy Sheriff on January 15, 2008. Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants violated her rights under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act and requests

permission to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s

request and dismisses the action without prejudice and with leave to re-open upon payment of

the filing fee.

Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed the in forma pauperis. All parties instituting any civil

action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except for an application for

writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. 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

Case 3:08-cv-00107-BEN-RBB Document 3 Filed 02/14/08 Page 1 of 2
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

2 08cv0107

1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Under §1915(a), the court may authorize the commencement of an

action without prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of

all assets, showing that he is unable to pay the filing fee. 

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). 

In the declaration submitted in support of his Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis,

Plaintiff stated that she is unemployed and has been receiving disability insurance payments of

approximately $2,100/month. (Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (“Decl.”), at ¶3). Plaintiff also owns a car and a house. (Decl., at 6). Although she

carries significant debt as well, she has not established her entitlement to the in forma pauperis

status. Therefore Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED. Accordingly, the

Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and may be re-opened if the Plaintiff pays the required

filing fee within 90 days of the date of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 14, 2008

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00107-BEN-RBB Document 3 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 2