Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02773/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02773-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

Karen Lunt,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv2773-CAB (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS 

AND 

PROVIDING LEAVE TO PAY

FILING FEE AND SERVE

COMPLAINT ON OR BEFORE

APRIL 5, 2013

[DOC. NO. 2]

vs.

Janet Napolitano, et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, a nonprisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a complaint pursuant

to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, alleging that her

“removal from the position of Special Agent with the U.S. Immigration and Customs

Enforcement branch of the Department of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security”

constituted discrimination based on disability and retaliation against her complaints of

sexual harassment and her requests for reasonable accommodation for her disability. 

[Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff has also submitted a Motion and Declaration Under Penalty of

Perjury in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). [Doc. No. 2.]

Motion to Proceed IFP

All partiesinstituting 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

- 1 - 12cv2773

Case 3:12-cv-02773-CAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 03/04/13 Page 1 of 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

$350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to

prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff 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).

Here, Plaintiff’s affidavit of assets fails to sufficiently to show thatshe is unable

to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action. See S.D. Cal. Local

R. 3.2(d). While Plaintiff was unemployed as of November 2012 and maintains a high

dollar amount of debt, she expects to receive $1,000 in monthly rent income through

March 2013, has the ability to obtain consulting jobs, maintains a checking account

with a balance of approximately $5,000, owns at least one automobile (though she lists

three), has approximately $200,000 of equity in her house, and owns a ring estimated

to be $20,000 in value. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed

IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed

IFP is DENIED. [Doc. No. 2.] If Plaintiff still wishes to continue to proceed with this

matter, then the Court hereby grants Plaintiff leave to pay the required filing fees and

to properly complete service of her complaint on or before April 5, 2013.

DATED: March 4, 2013

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv2773

Case 3:12-cv-02773-CAB-NLS Document 3 Filed 03/04/13 Page 2 of 2