Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01906/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01906-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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 - 10cv1906

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEL M. MARIN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10 CV 1906 MMA (RBB)

ORDER:

DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

[Doc. No. 2]

DENYING MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

[Doc. No. 3]

vs.

SAEID EIDGAHY, et al.,

Defendants.

On September 14, 2010, Plaintiff Mel M. Marin, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights

complaint [Doc. No. 1], along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. No. 2],

and a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 3.]

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

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 in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See

Case 3:10-cv-01906-MMA-RBB Document 4 Filed 09/15/10 Page 1 of 4
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

A judgment debtor is one who owes money as a result of a judgment against him. However,

because Plaintiff lists himself as a judgment debtor in response to a question about additional assets,

it is unclear whether Plaintiff owes money to satisfy several California judgments, or whether Plaintiff

intended to assert he holds judgments against others. Either way, Plaintiff asserts the judgments have

been uncollectible for ten years.

- 2 - 10cv1906

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). 

In his affidavit, Plaintiff claims he is unemployed, but he recently received approximately

$240 in April 2010 for work done for the United States Census Bureau, and that he currently

receives $600 per month for “federally funded job training benefits” to attend college this year. 

[Doc. No. 2.] Plaintiff reports he has a checking account with a balance of $20, and owns a 1995

Dodge Caravan. Plaintiff also indicates he is the beneficiary of one or more family trusts that hold

a house located at 313 Poplar Street, Erie, Pennsylvania, and three vacant lots in New Castle,

Pennsylvania. Plaintiff asserts the house has been assessed at a value of $250, but because it

cannot be sold or occupied it has a market value of $0 for purposes of the family trust. Similarly,

he contends the vacant lots in New Castle also have no value. Plaintiff further states he is a

judgment debtor for five judgments in California,1

 and he is the executor for unspecified “family

claims elsewhere.” 

Finally, with respect to his debt obligations Plaintiff declares there are “[n]o records

available and not able to make payments in any case.” He then lists the following debts: “$100

monthly for phone, $100 for storage, $40 for car insurance and fees, $200 for gas to travel to

different campuses, $100 for printing charges for class assignments, and the remainder for food

and laundry.” 

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 even-handed 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). 

The affidavit submitted by Plaintiff in support of his motion to proceed IFP does not demonstrate

the he lacks the financial resources or assets to pay the costs of commencing this action. 

Case 3:10-cv-01906-MMA-RBB Document 4 Filed 09/15/10 Page 2 of 4
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 - 10cv1906

Plaintiff states in his affidavit that he is currently unemployed, but recently received

approximately $250 for work done for the United States Census Bureau. Plaintiff owns his

automobile outright, he currently has a steady monthly income of $600 for use toward his college

education, and he has $20 in his checking account. Plaintiff also claims to have identifiable

monthly debts totaling approximately $540, and states the remainder is for food and laundry. The

Court, however, is concerned the affidavit does not represent a full and accurate summary of

Plaintiff’s financial condition, in part, because no where does Plaintiff account for the cost of

tuition and related necessities such as books and school supplies. In addition, Plaintiff is able to

pay the excessive expense of $100 per month for a phone, and the potentially unnecessary fee of

$100 per month for storage, while Plaintiff does identify any expense for rent or other housing

accommodations.

Lastly, the information Plaintiff provides regarding the four Pennsylvania properties held

in trust for his sole benefit suggests his IFP affidavit is inaccurate or otherwise incomplete. First,

Plaintiff identifies a house in Erie, Pennsylvania that he claims has no value because it cannot be

sold or otherwise occupied. However, the Court’s review of publicly available documents reveal

that the Erie house located at 313 Poplar Street was sold on May 18, 2010 for $250, despite its

appraised value exceeding $40,000. Thus, the Court does not find Plaintiff’s representation that

the property is valueless credible. Similarly, the Court does not accept Plaintiff’s unsupported

representation that the three vacant lots in New Castle, Pennsylvania are completely worthless. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied the indigency

requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and that he is able to pay costs to commence this action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 2] is DENIED; 

2. Plaintiff shall pay the $350 filing fee within fourteen (14) days of the date of this

Order or this action shall be dismissed; 

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-01906-MMA-RBB Document 4 Filed 09/15/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 10cv1906

3. In the absence of an operative complaint, Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED AS MOOT [Doc. No.

3].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 15, 2010

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01906-MMA-RBB Document 4 Filed 09/15/10 Page 4 of 4