Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00331/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00331-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHERYL LYNN DOUGLAS, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE EZRALOW COMPANY LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-00331-KJM-CKD (PS)

ORDER

Plaintiffs Cheryl Lynn Douglas and Andrew Grant Haymore proceed without counsel and 

seek to proceed in forma pauperis. This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 

302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

To commence a civil action, along with the complaint, a plaintiff or plaintiffs must either 

pay the $350.00 filing fee and the $55.00 administrative fee or request leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). “Where there are multiple plaintiffs in a 

single action, the plaintiffs may not proceed in forma pauperis unless all of them demonstrate 

inability to pay the filing fee.” Darden v. Indymac Bancorp, Inc., No. CIV S-09-2970 JAM DAD, 

2009 WL 5206637, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2009); see also Hampton v. City of Pomona Police 

Dep’t, No. 2:22-cv-09430-FWS-ADS, 2023 WL 3317063, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2023)

(denying IFP applications where one plaintiff did not sufficiently demonstrate an inability to pay 

the filing fee and still afford the necessities of life).

Case 2:24-cv-00331-KJM-CKD Document 4 Filed 05/07/24 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

A plaintiff seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis must submit an affidavit 

demonstrating inability to pay the filing fee, which must include a statement of all the plaintiff’s 

assets and demonstrate the affiant’s poverty “with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” 

United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). “An affidavit in support of an IFP 

application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford 

the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation 

omitted). While § 1915(a) does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution, Adkins 

v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948), the applicant must nonetheless 

show that he is “unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). If the 

court determines “the allegation of poverty is untrue,” the court “shall dismiss the case.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Here, plaintiff Douglas and plaintiff Haymore filed separate applications in support of 

their requests to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) Plaintiffs do not make the requisite 

showing of poverty to be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff Douglas’ affidavit does not support a finding that plaintiff Douglas was unable to 

pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life when plaintiffs filed this suit. (See ECF 

No. 3.) At the time plaintiffs filed the suit, plaintiff Douglas had $314.00 in a checking or savings 

account and $23,076.24 invested in a 401K. Significantly, plaintiff Douglas earned $3,846.15 in 

gross pay or wages every two weeks and $2,853.25 in take home pay or wages every two weeks. 

Although plaintiff Douglas listed several debts and financial obligations, as well as expenses in 

the amount of $5,405.00 per month, the listed expenses reflect far more than the bare necessities 

of life. In addition, plaintiff Douglas had a net-positive monthly source of money even with the 

listed expenses.1

1 Plaintiff Douglas lists plaintiff Haymore as a dependent (adult disabled veteran), but plaintiff 

Haymore has income in the amount of $1,182 per month and indicates he is paying his own 

expenses including $800 in rent and $300 in utilities and miscellaneous. It is unclear whether 

plaintiff Haymore pays this amount for rent and utilities in connection with the apartment the 

plaintiffs rented together for $2,398. (See ECF No. 1, Verified Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 13.) If so, then 

the court would question whether the plaintiffs’ monthly expenses are accurately listed because 

plaintiff Douglas’ affidavit sets forth the full $2,398 rent payment as a monthly expense and both 

Case 2:24-cv-00331-KJM-CKD Document 4 Filed 05/07/24 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

While § 1915(a) does not require a litigant to demonstrate “absolute destitution,” Adkins, 

335 U.S. at 339, the applicant must nonetheless show inability to pay the fees. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a). The court recognizes neither plaintiff had more than $314.00 in a checking or savings 

account at the affidavits were filed. However, the court also considers plaintiffs’ income and 

expenses, which demonstrate they do not make the requisite showing of poverty to be granted 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiffs will be granted 30 days in which to submit the appropriate filing fee and 

administrative fee to the Clerk of the Court. Plaintiffs are cautioned that failure to pay the court 

costs will result in a recommendation that the applications to proceed in forma pauperis be denied 

and the present action be dismissed without prejudice.

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days 

from the date of this order, plaintiffs shall submit the appropriate filing fee and administrative fee.

Dated: May 6, 2024

8

Douglas24cv311.ifp

plaintiffs claim responsibility for utilities with Haymore being responsible for “utilities misc” in 

the amount of $300, plaintiff Douglas being responsible for utilities in the amount of $488

(exclusive of phone), and plaintiff Douglas including a further monthly expense of $180 for 

“WSG” which, without further explanation, the court will infer to mean water, sewer, and gas. It 

is unnecessary to obtain clarification on these points because even assuming the plaintiffs’ 

income and expenses are accurately listed, plaintiffs do not meet the standard to proceed to 

proceed without prepayment of fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00331-KJM-CKD Document 4 Filed 05/07/24 Page 3 of 3