Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01020/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01020-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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 - 10cv1020w

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOM FRANKLIN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO: 10-CV-1020 W (CAB) 

ORDER:

(1) DENYING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS MOTION 

(Doc. No. 2) and;

(2) DISMISSING LAWSUIT

(Doc. No. 1)

 v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION,

Defendant.

On May 12, 2010, Plaintiff Tom Franklin (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,

commenced this action. (Doc. No. 1.) On the same day, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking

in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. (Doc. No. 2.) For the reasons outlined below, the Court

DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP motion and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the

lawsuit.

The determination of indigency 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) (holding that “Section 1915 typically requires the

Case 3:10-cv-01020-W-CAB Document 3 Filed 05/17/10 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 - 10cv1020w

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 in forma pauperis. 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. 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, 851 F.Supp. 316, (N.D.Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other grounds, Olivares

v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that district court did not abuse

discretion in requiring partial fee payment from prisoner with $14.61 monthly salary and

$110 per month from family); Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 1995)

(Plaintiff initially permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, later required to pay $120

filing fee out of $900 settlement proceeds); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F.Supp. 129, 130 (E.D.

Pa. 1982) (in forma pauperis application denied: “plaintiff possessed savings of $450 and

the magistrate correctly determined that this amount was more than sufficient to allow

the plaintiff to pay the filing fee in this action.”). Moreover, the facts as to 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). 

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

current record, Plaintiff has failed to meet 28 U.S.C. § 1915's requirements for IFP status.

Specifically, the information provided by Plaintiff in support of his IFP motion lacks the

“particularity, definiteness, and certainty” that is required by the Ninth Circuit. Id.

Case 3:10-cv-01020-W-CAB Document 3 Filed 05/17/10 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 - 10cv1020w

For example, Plaintiff has refused to provide answers to most of the questions on

the IFP application. (See IFP Mot. at ¶¶ 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11.) Based on this lack of

information, Plaintiff’s true economic situation is unascertainable.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

without prejudice, and DISMISSES the lawsuit. Plaintiff shall have until June 11, 2010

to reinstate this case by (1) paying the $350 filing fee or (2) submitting an amended IFP

application. Plaintiff is advised that failure to meet either of these requirements may cause

the termination of his case without further leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 17, 2010

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01020-W-CAB Document 3 Filed 05/17/10 Page 3 of 3