Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_20-cv-00078/USCOURTS-azd-4_20-cv-00078-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Peter Pototsky,

Plaintiff,

v. 

City of Nogales, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-20-00078-TUC-DCB

ORDER 

On April 13, 2020, the Plaintiff filed this Complaint, asked to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and moved for a change of venue based on arguments that this Court and the 

other District Court’s in Tucson should be recused. On March 20, 2020, the Court screened 

the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, denied the recusal request, denied in forma 

pauperis status and directed him to complete the requisite Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis, and dismissed the Complaint with leave to Amend because of pleading 

deficiencies and failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The 

Court gave the Plaintiff until April 13, 2020 to file the Amended Complaint and 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

Instead, the Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint, but not the Application to 

Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and reurged recusal. On May 4, 2020, the Court affirmed the 

denied recusal, noted the Plaintiff was not proceeding in forma pauperis, and ordered him 

to serve the First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 

4.

Case 4:20-cv-00078-DCB Document 18 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

Instead, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which 

was dismissed as an improper interlocutory appeal on May 21, 2020. Upon returning to 

this Court, the Plaintiff again asks to proceed in forma pauperis. He files the requisite 

Application for In Forma Pauperis Status. The Court denies in forma pauperis status on 

the merits.

As the Court suspected, the Plaintiff’s income of approximately $19,000 per year 

for a single person far exceeds the $12,760 poverty guideline for 2020, which this Court 

uses for guidance in determining indigency. Eligibility for Medicaid, one of the more 

generous levels of indigency is calculated at 138% of the poverty guideline or $16,971 for 

a single adult. Because the Court does not grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis it does 

not screen the First Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A but notes that it would 

survive a Rule 8 challenge. The jurisdictional challenges that may exist, as earlier described

when the Court screened the original Complaint, remain especially in the context of 

Plaintiff’s claims involving the ongoing criminal misdemeanor proceeding in Santa Cruz. 

The Court’s assessment of the merits of the claims weighs in favor of denying in forma 

pauperis status. In the event the Plaintiff wishes to proceed with his case, he must pay the 

filing fee and serve his First Amended Complaint. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Application for In forma Pauperis Status (Docs. 2, 17) 

is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall serve the First Amended 

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee within 30 

days of the filing date of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event the Plaintiff fails to do either, this 

case may be subject to dismissal without further notice to the Plaintiff.

Dated this 1st day of June, 2020.

Case 4:20-cv-00078-DCB Document 18 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

Case 4:20-cv-00078-DCB Document 18 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 3