Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-03036/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-03036-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

- 1 - 11cv3036

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE E. MILLER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-03036 JLS (RBB)

ORDER: (1) DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; (2) DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 2)

vs.

WORLD SAVINGS BANK; WACHOVIA

MORTGAGE COMPANY; MORTGAGE

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

SYSTEMS, INC.; BAC HOME LOAN

SERVICING LP; WELLS FARGO BANK,

N.A.; U.S. BANK N.A.; BANK OF NEW

YORK MELLON, KEYBANK N.A.;

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

COMPANY; SUN, LIMU, DOE ENTITIES

1-10 WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY,

INC.; NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING

CORPORATION; and DOE ENTITIES

1through 100, Inclusive,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has submitted a complaint alleging violations of the Truth in

Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-67, as well as several state law claims. (Compl., ECF No. 1) 

Plaintiff has also submitted an application to proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

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 $350. See 28

Case 3:11-cv-03036-JLS-RBB Document 3 Filed 01/26/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 11cv3036

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only

if he 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). A federal court may authorize the commencement of an action

without the prepayment of fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets,

showing that he is unable to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

According to Plaintiff’s application, he last worked only five days prior to filing this

action, earning $850 on that day at a swap meet. (IFP Mot. 2, ECF No. 2) Plaintiff also states that

the source of all funds for his day-to-day expenses is “swap meet.” (IFP Mot. 3) Plaintiff does not

identify in the IFP application how often he works at swap meets. In contrast, the Complaint

indicates that he was employed, at least at some point, in a field related to “investment property

income.” (Compl. ¶ 51) The next paragraph of the Complaint alleges Plaintiff had been misled

into overstating his income. (Compl. ¶ 52) Whether Plaintiff was ever actually so employed is

unclear, but these inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s stated employment status concern the Court. 

Further inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s filings appear upon closer examination. For example,

it is unclear how many properties Plaintiff owns. The Complaint refers to “several of the

Plaintiff’s Real Properties...,” but the IFP motion states Plaintiff owns only one property, located

on Oakvale Road in Escondido, California. (Compl. ¶ 20; IFP Mot. 3) Plaintiff should have

accurately listed his last employment, including annual salary, pay period, and employer’s address,

in answer to question 2 on the IFP application, and should also have listed all real estate property

in answer to question 7 on the IFP application. (IFP Mot. 2-3) The scant information given in

answer to these questions and the inconsistent statements found in the IFP application and the

Complaint provide the Court with no reliable understanding of Plaintiff’s financial position. Thus,

the Court finds that Plaintiff’s declaration of inability to pay costs or give security is insufficient to

permit him to proceed IFP. See, e.g., In re Webb, 2007 WL 1742921 at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2007)

(denying motion to proceed IFP after noting several inconsistencies in the application and finding

it “does not state the facts of her poverty with particularity, nor with definiteness and certainty.”)

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED and the Complaint is

DISMISSED without prejudice. Pursuant to this Order, however, Plaintiff is granted 60 days

Case 3:11-cv-03036-JLS-RBB Document 3 Filed 01/26/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 11cv3036

leave to pay the $350 filing fee required to maintain this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, or to

submit additional documentation regarding his economic status. Furthermore, Plaintiff is

encouraged to edit the Complaint for inconsistencies and to ensure that all Defendants named in

the Complaint are properly identified. IF PLAINTIFF CHOOSES TO FILE ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION REGARDING HIS POVERTY, HE MUST ATTACH A COPY OF THIS

ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 26, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-03036-JLS-RBB Document 3 Filed 01/26/12 Page 3 of 3