Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01720/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01720-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

– 1 – 17cv1720

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

ROY TUCK,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-1720-BAS-KSC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

v.

PACER SERVICE CENTER U.S. 

COURTS, et al.,

Defendants.

On August 24, 2017, Roy Tuck filed this case against Defendants for alleged 

violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), the federal Fair 

Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and 

the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”). (ECF 

No. 1.) Mr. Tuck moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) For the 

reasons stated below, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Tuck’s 

Motion.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Roy Tuck and his wife Deborah Tuck, together with their son Richard Caruso 

and mother-in-law Clarice Tuck, appear to have developed a cottage industry suing 

Case 3:17-cv-01720-BAS-KSC Document 3 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
– 2 – 17cv1720

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

their creditors for violations of the TCPA, the FDCPA and the FCRA. In each case, 

the parties request to proceed IFP, listing liabilities that far exceed assets. Curiously, 

however, despite the fact that they have received settlements from approximately a 

dozen different defendants, their assets and cash in their bank accounts remained 

unchanged. A short list of examples includes:

1) Roy Tuck v. Receivables Performance Mgmt., Inc., Case No. 15-cv1377-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal.), settled on October 7, 2015 (ECF No. 7);

2) Roy Tuck v. DirecTV, Case No. 16-cv-0160-JLS-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Joint 

Motion to Dismiss filed on August 16, 2017 (ECF No. 28);

3) Roy Tuck v. Encore Capital Group, Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 

Midland Funding LLC, HSBC Bank, Verizon Wireless, Experian Info.

Solutions Inc., Capital One Bank, Case No. 16-cv-293-DMS-MDD

(S.D. Cal.), Joint Motion to Dismiss with respect to Encore and both 

Midland defendants filed on April 11, 2016 (ECF No. 7), Joint Motion 

to Dismiss with respect to Cellco Partnership d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless 

filed on August 24, 2016 (ECF No. 45), settled with Experian on 

September 19, 2016 (ECF No. 47), agreed to dismiss HSBC Bank on

October 13, 2016 (ECF No. 50), and settled with Capital One Bank on 

October 27, 2016 (ECF No. 54); 

4) Roy Tuck v. Merrick Bank Corp, Equifax Inc., Trans Union LLC, 

Experian Info. Solutions Inc., Case No. 16-cv-877-BEN-KSC (S.D. 

Cal.), reached a settlement with Experian on August 17, 2016 (ECF No. 

19), Joint Motion to Dismiss Trans Union filed on August 23, 2016 (ECF 

No. 17), and reached a settlement agreement with remaining defendants 

October 19, 2016 (ECF No. 25);

5) Deborah Tuck v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., Case No. 15-cv-2036-

MMA-MDD (S.D. Cal.), Joint Motion to Dismiss filed on April 12, 

2016 (ECF No. 14);

Case 3:17-cv-01720-BAS-KSC Document 3 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
– 3 – 17cv1720

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

6) Deborah Tuck v. Am. Capitol Enterprises, Case No. 15-cv-2042-CABRBB (S.D. Cal.), Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed on December 20, 

2015 (ECF No. 9);

7) Deborah Tuck v. Portfolio Recovery Assoc., LLC, HSBC Bank NA, 

Equifax Inc., Trans Union LLC, Experian Info. Solutions Inc., Case No.

16-cv-684-JAH-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Joint Motion to Dismiss Trans Union

on August 23, 2016 (ECF No. 32), settled with Experian on September 

19, 2016 (ECF No. 33), agreed to dismiss HSBC Bank on October 13, 

2016 (ECF No. 37), and settled with Portfolio Recovery Associates on 

April 20, 2017 (ECF No. 63);

8) Deborah Tuck v. Merrick Bank Corp., Equifax Inc., Trans Union LLC, 

Experian Info. Solutions Inc., Case No. 16-cv-917-JAH-MDD (S.D. 

Cal.), reached an agreement with Experian on August 22, 2016 (ECF 

No. 8) and notified of settlement with remaining defendants on October 

19, 2016 (ECF No. 14); 

9) Deborah Tuck v. Calvary Portfolio Services, Case No. 16-cv-918-AJBMDD (S.D. Cal.), settled on November 2, 2016 (ECF No. 15); 

10) Richard Caruso v. Encore Capital Group, Midland Credit Mgmt. Inc., 

Midland Funding LLC, T-Mobile, Equifax Inc., Case No. 16-cv-586-

BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal.), settled with T-Mobile on May 17, 2016 (ECF No. 

11) and settled with Equifax on November 2, 2016 (ECF No. 15); and

11) Richard Caruso v. Merchants Credit Ass’n, Equifax Inc., Trans Union 

LLC, Experian Info. Solutions Inc., Case No. 16-cv-895-BAG-AGS

(S.D. Cal.), settled with Experian and Equifax on July 21, 2016 (ECF 

No. 11).

II. ANALYSIS

Under 28 U.S.C. §1915(a), a litigant who is unable to pay the fee or give 

security needed to commence a legal action because of indigency may petition a court 

Case 3:17-cv-01720-BAS-KSC Document 3 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
– 4 – 17cv1720

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

to proceed without making such payment. The determination of indigency falls 

within the district court’s discretion. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Adv. Council

v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 

(1993) (holding that “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 IFP. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 

339-40 (1948). To 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 (internal quotations omitted). 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, 841 F. Supp. 316, 321 (N.D. Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other 

grounds by, Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring a partial fee payment from a 

prisoner who had a $14.61 monthly salary and who received $100 per month from 

his family). Moreover, “[i]n forma pauperis status may be acquired and lost during 

the course of litigation.” Wilson v. Dir. of Div. of Adult Institutions, No. CIV 

S−06−0791, 2009 WL 311150, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009) (citing Stehouwer, 841 

F. Supp. at 321); see also Allen v. Kelly, Nos. C−91−1635−VRW, 

C−93−1479−VRW, C−94−4162−VRW, 1995 WL 396860, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 

1995) (holding that a plaintiff who was initially permitted to proceed IFP should be 

required to pay his $120 filing fee out of a $900 settlement). Finally, the facts as to 

Case 3:17-cv-01720-BAS-KSC Document 3 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
– 5 – 17cv1720

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

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).

In his motion to proceed IFP, Mr. Tuck admits receiving some settlements in 

his previously filed cases but adds that they “have been meager at best.” (ECF No. 

2.) However, by this court’s reckoning, Mr. Tuck and his wife have received 

settlements from at least fifteen defendants, some to settle multiple cases. If the 

settlements exceed the $400 filing fee, then it may be that the Tucks can afford to 

“pull their own oar” and it would not be appropriate to waive the filing fee. Therefore, 

the court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Motion for IFP status (ECF No. 2). 

If Mr. Tuck chooses to refile the motion to proceed IFP, he should specifically 

list the settlement amounts from each of the following defendants and explain why 

these settlement amounts cannot be used to pay the filing fee in this case: 

 American Capitol Enterprises (Case No. 15-cv-2042);

 Calvary Portfolio Services (Case No. 16-cv-918);

 Capital One Bank (Case No. 16-cv-293);

 DirecTV (Case No. 16-cv-160);

 Encore Capital Group (Case No. 16-cv-293);

 Equifax (Case Nos. 16-cv-684, 16-cv-877, 16-cv-917);

 Experian Information Solutions Inc. (Case Nos. 16-cv-293, 16-cv-684, 

16-cv-877, 16-cv-917);

 HSBC Bank (Case Nos. 16-cv-293, 16-cv-684);

 Merrick Bank Corp. (Case Nos. 16-cv-877, 16-cv-917);

 Midland Credit Management, Inc. (Case Nos. 16-cv-293; 15-cv-2036); 

 Midland Funding LLC (Case No. 16-cv-293);

 Portfolio Recovery Associates (Case No. 16-cv-684); 

 Receivables Performance Management (Case No. 15-cv-1377);

 Trans Union LLC (Case Nos. 16-cv-684, 16-cv-877, 16-cv-917);

 Verizon Wireless (Case No. 16-cv-293); and

Case 3:17-cv-01720-BAS-KSC Document 3 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
– 6 – 17cv1720

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

 Any other court settlement received by him or his wife.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Mr. Tuck’s Motion to 

Proceed IFP, (ECF No. 2), and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the 

Complaint. Pursuant to this order, Plaintiff is granted leave for thirty days to pay the 

filing fee required to maintain this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, or to submit 

additional documentation regarding his financial status. IF PLAINTIFF 

CHOOSES TO FILE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING HIS 

POVERTY, HE MUST ATTACH A COPY OF THIS ORDER. Plaintiff is 

advised to use Form AO 239 and include the information requested by the Court 

above should he choose to file additional documentation regarding his financial 

status. Finally, Plaintiff is reminded that an IFP application is made under penalty 

of perjury, and any false statements may result in dismissal of his claims, 

imprisonment of not more than five years, or a fine. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621, 3571.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 12, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01720-BAS-KSC Document 3 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6