Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02628/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02628-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

-1- 15cv2628-MMA (MDD) 

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 

JOHN DOE, a minor, LaDELL 

GRIZZELL, and MARY AUSTIN, 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

EDUCATIONAL ENRICHMENT 

SYSTEMS, INC. et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 15cv2628-MMA (MDD)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[Doc. Nos. 4, 5, 6]

 

 On November 23, 2015, Plaintiffs LaDell Grizzell and Mary Austin, proceeding 

pro se, filed this action on behalf of Plaintiff Grizzell’s son, John Doe, against 

Defendants Educational Enrichment Systems, Inc., and Robin Layton, Celine Krimston, 

Sarah Hernandez, Maria-Elena Gomez, Alicia Astroth, Carolina Castillo, in their official 

and individual capacities, alleging violations of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. and the 

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, among other causes of action. 

The Complaint indicates that Plaintiffs Grizzell and Austin wish to assert causes of action 

for defamation on their own behalves as well. Plaintiffs filed a single motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which was denied on November 24, 2015. [Doc. No. 2.] On 

December 9, 2015, Plaintiffs LaDell Grizzell and Mary Austin filed separate, renewed 

motions to proceed IFP, and Plaintiff Grizzell filed a motion to proceed IFP on behalf of 

her son, John Doe. [Doc. Nos. 4, 5, 6.] 

Case 3:15-cv-02628-MMA-MDD Document 7 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 3
 -2- 15cv2628-MMA (MDD) 

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

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 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). “To proceed in 

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

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). Further, although only one filing fee is 

required per case, where there are multiple plaintiffs, a court may consider the 

availability of funds from each of the plaintiffs in determining whether to grant IFP 

status. See Nur v. Blake Development Corp., 664 F. Supp. 430, 431 (N.D. Ind. 1987). 

Plaintiff Grizzell states that she is unemployed and in between housing. She states 

that she does not receive any income, aside from “workmens comp.” However, she does 

not indicate the amount of workers compensation she receives or the frequency of any 

such payments. Her only asset is a car—a 2002 Lexus. She does not list its value, as 

required by the IFP application form. Plaintiff Grizzell indicates that she has three 

children that rely on her for support, but states that she does not spend any money on 

herself or her children. The Court finds that Plaintiff Grizzell’s IFP form is functionally 

incomplete. Plaintiff Grizzell must inform the Court of the value of her car and how she 

is obtaining sustenance for herself and her children. 

Plaintiff Austin states that she is unemployed and homeless. Plaintiff Austin has 

received an average of 647.07 dollars in social security payments per month in the past 

twelve months. She has three dependent, minor children. Her family’s average monthly 

Case 3:15-cv-02628-MMA-MDD Document 7 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 3
 -3- 15cv2628-MMA (MDD) 

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

expenses total 645.00 dollars. She currently has two dollars in her bank account. She 

indicates that she is married, but does not live with her spouse. She does not provide 

information regarding her spouse’s finances, as required by the IFP application form. 

Also, she does not indicate what income she expects next month, as is required. Plaintiff 

Austin must answer the questions on the form regarding her expected future income and 

her spouse’s income. She must inform the Court as to whether she is receiving any 

alimony or child support payments from her spouse. 

As for John Doe, he is a minor and is not suing on his own behalf. As such, John 

Doe does not need to file a motion for IFP. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes it lacks sufficient information to 

determine whether it is outside of Plaintiff Grizzell’s and Plaintiff Austin’s means to pay 

the costs of commencing this action. Accordingly, the Court DENIES without 

prejudice Plaintiffs’ motions to proceed IFP. [Doc. Nos. 4, 5, 6.]; see Civ. L.R. 3.2. 

Within fourteen days of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall either: (a) pay the requisite 

$400 filing fee, or (b) file renewed motions for IFP containing the requisite information 

regarding their ability to pay the costs of commencing this action. If Plaintiffs fail to 

timely submit payment or a renewed motion for IFP, this case shall be dismissed. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2015

 _____________________________ 

 Hon. Michael M. Anello 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-02628-MMA-MDD Document 7 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 3