Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02467/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02467-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983cvp Civil Rights (Personal Property)

---

-1- 17cv2467-MMA (KSC)

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 

JOE EDWARD COLLINS, III,

Plaintiff,

v. 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DCSS, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv2467-MMA (KSC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS 

[Doc. No. 2]

On December 8, 2017, Plaintiff Joe Edward Collins, III (“Plaintiff”), proceeding 

pro se, filed this action against the County of San Diego DCSS. See Doc. No. 1. 

Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Doc. 

No. 2. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 

IFP. 

DISCUSSION

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 

prepay the entire fee only if she is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed in 

forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:17-cv-02467-MMA-KSC Document 3 Filed 12/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
 -2- 17cv2467-MMA (KSC)

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

1965). 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 evenhanded 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). 

 Here, Plaintiff did not sign the affidavit in support of his application to proceed 

IFP. See Doc. No. 2 at 1. Thus, Plaintiff has not certified under penalty of perjury that 

he is unable to pay the costs associated with litigating this action. Plaintiff’s failure to 

sign the affidavit in support of his IFP application is sufficient grounds to deny Plaintiff’s 

Application. Further, Plaintiff indicates on the application that his average monthly 

income is $3,669.62, yet Plaintiff’s total monthly expenses are $90.00. See id. at 1, 6. 

As such, it does not appear that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief he requests. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP and 

DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to prepay the $400 filing fee 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Plaintiff may re-open his case by paying the $400 

statutory and administrative filing fee within fourteen (14) days from the date this Order 

is filed. If Plaintiff fails to pay the $400 filing fee within 14 days, this action will remain 

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), and without further Order 

of the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2017

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-02467-MMA-KSC Document 3 Filed 12/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2