Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03095/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03095-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e-2ag Job Discrimination (Age)

---

1

16-CV-3095 W (WVG)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN MEARS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRIDE INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-CV-3095 W (WVG)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IFP [DOC. 2]

Plaintiff John Mears has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (the 

“Motion” [Doc. 2]). The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s 

discretion. California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), 

reversed on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing 

court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the 

statute’s requirement of indigency.”).

It is well-settled that 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). To 

Case 3:16-cv-03095-W-WVG Document 3 Filed 01/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-CV-3095 W (WVG)

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

satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which 

states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs ... and still be 

able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. At the 

same time, however, “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal 

funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, ... 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).

District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant can pay 

the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., Stehouwer v. Hennessey, 

851 F.Supp. 316, (N.D.Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other grounds, Olivares v. Marshall, 59 

F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that district court did not abuse discretion in requiring 

partial fee payment from prisoner with $14.61 monthly salary and $110 per month from 

family); Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (Plaintiff initially 

permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, later required to pay $120 filing fee out of $900 

settlement proceeds); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F.Supp. 129, 130 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (in forma 

pauperis application denied: “plaintiff possessed savings of $450 and the magistrate 

correctly determined that this amount was more than sufficient to allow the plaintiff to pay 

the filing fee in this action.”). Moreover, the facts as to the affiant’s poverty must be stated 

“with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 

938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Here, the application Plaintiff used to apply for IFP status required him to identify 

any sources of “other income,” including “the amount that you received.” (See Motion ¶ 3.) 

Plaintiff acknowledged that he “receives unemployment insurance (EDD)” but he failed to 

identify the amount he receives. (Id.) Without that information, the Court cannot 

//

//

Case 3:16-cv-03095-W-WVG Document 3 Filed 01/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-CV-3095 W (WVG)

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

evaluate if Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for IFP status. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

Motion [Doc. 2] is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-03095-W-WVG Document 3 Filed 01/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3