Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01636/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01636-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1983bv Bivens Non-Prisoner

---

-1- 17cv1636-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 

MONTOREY LLC, MONTOREY 

DANYELL HARPER, 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

UNITED STATES, UN, NATO, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv1636-MMA (MDD)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[Doc. No. 2]

 

 On August 14, 2017, Plaintiffs Montorey LLC and Montorey Danyell Harper filed 

this action against the United States, UN, and NATO. Plaintiff Montorey Harper 

simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. No. 2. 

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 

Case 3:17-cv-01636-MMA-MDD Document 3 Filed 08/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
 -2- 17cv1636-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

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 Montorey Harper states that has a monthly income of $4,231.00 per 

month—$2,915.00 in disability payments, and $1,316.00 in other funds. He also avers 

that he has $220.00 in cash and $80.88 in bank accounts. Plaintiff states that his monthly 

expenses amount to $3,100.00, meaning that his net income amounts to more than 

$1,000.00 per month. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff is able to pay the $400 filing 

fee in order to institute this action. Thus, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s 

motion to proceed IFP. Doc. No. 2; see Civ. L.R. 3.2. Within fourteen days of the date 

of this Order, Plaintiff shall either: (a) pay the requisite $400 filing fee, or (b) file a 

renewed motion for IFP containing the requisite information regarding his ability to pay 

the costs of commencing this action. If Plaintiff fails to timely submit payment or a 

renewed motion for IFP, this case shall be dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: August 23, 2017 _____________________________

 Hon. Michael M. Anello 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-01636-MMA-MDD Document 3 Filed 08/24/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2