Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02913/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02913-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

PAUL ALBERT GUARDADO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO: 09-CV-2913 W (RBB) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[DOC. 36] v.

GEORGE A. NEOTTI,

Respondent.

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Paul Albert Guardado’s motion for

leave to proceed in forma forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. For the following

reasons, the Court will grant the motion.

A party seeking to proceed IFP on appeal must file a motion in the district

court. See Fed R. App. P. 24(a)(1). The determination of whether a plaintiff is

indigent, and thus unable to pay the filing fee falls within the district court’s

discretion. California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991),

reversed on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the

reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant

- 1 - 09cv2913w

Case 3:09-cv-02913-W-RBB Document 41 Filed 02/29/12 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

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 IFP

status, “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. 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).

Having read and considered the papers submitted, the Court finds that

Petitioner has demonstrated that he is unable to pay the fees or post securities

required to pursue his appeal. According to his declaration, Petitioner receives

approximately $25 a month income from his prison job. He receives no other

income. And his CDCR Inmate Statement Report (Doc. 37) establishes that his

account balance as of January 6, 2012 was $59.50. For these reasons, the Court

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal. (Doc. 36.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 29, 2012

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

- 2 - 09cv2913w

Case 3:09-cv-02913-W-RBB Document 41 Filed 02/29/12 Page 2 of 2