Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00144/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00144-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331pi Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

– 1 – 18cv144

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

I: A MAN,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-0144-BAS-BGS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING ACTION

v.

BETTY T. YEE,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

(ECF No. 2.) For the reasons herein, the Court denies the motion and dismisses the 

action.

Generally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a filing fee is required to commence a 

civil action in federal court. However, under 28 U.S.C. §1915, a litigant who 

because of indigency is unable to pay the fee or give security needed to commence 

a legal action may petition a court to proceed without making such payment. The 

determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. Cal. Men’s 

Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 506 

U.S. 194 (1993) (holding that “Section 1915 typically requires the 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 IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 

Case 3:18-cv-00144-BAS-BGS Document 5 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 18cv144

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

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. Here, Plaintiff has not provided any 

information by which this Court assess whether he is entitled to proceed IFP in this 

action. However, the Court observes that Plaintiff has twice paid the $400 filing fee 

required to commence a civil action in federal court. See Ziegler v. Yee, No. 3:16-

cv-2664-WQH-WVG, ECF No. 1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2016); Ziegler v. Yee, No. 3:17-

cv-2102-AJB-BLM, ECF No. 1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2017). 

Even if Plaintiff had properly requested IFP status, his Complaint would 

nevertheless be subject to dismissal. Duplicative lawsuits filed by a plaintiff 

proceeding in forma pauperis are subject to dismissal as either frivolous or malicious 

under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). See, e.g., Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 

(9th Cir. 1995); McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997); 

Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994–95 (5th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 

F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). An in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats 

pending or previously litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed 

under §1915. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. “Dismissal of 

the duplicative lawsuit, more so than the issuance of a stay or the enjoinment of 

proceedings, promotes judicial economy and the comprehensive disposition of 

litigation.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688, 692-94 (9th 

Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 

(2008). A review of court records indicates that Plaintiff has filed the same claim 

against the same Defendant on three prior occasions. See Ziegler v. Yee, No. 3:16-

cv-2664-WQH-WVG, ECF No. 1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2016); Ziegler v. Yee, No. 3:17-

cv-2102-AJB-BLM, ECF No. 1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2017); Ziegler v. Yee, No. 3:17-

cv-2483-LAB-BGS, ECF No. 1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2017). The second action was 

dismissed for failure to properly invoke diversity jurisdiction and the third action 

Case 3:18-cv-00144-BAS-BGS Document 5 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 18cv144

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

was dismissed for failure to pay the required filing fee or submit a proper motion to 

proceed IFP. Most importantly, the first action was dismissed after Defendant Yee 

moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8(a) and failure to establish any basis for either federal or diversity 

jurisdiction. See Ziegler v. Yee, No. 3:16-cv-2664-WQH-WVG, ECF No. 6 (S.D. 

Cal. Jan. 18, 2016). That case was dismissed after Plaintiff failed to file an amended 

complaint to correct his deficient pleadings, despite being granted leave to amend. 

(Id. ECF Nos. 6, 7.) The instant lawsuit is duplicative of these prior claims and 

would be subject to sua sponte dismissal as frivolous or malicious.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP and

DISMISSES the Complaint for failure to pay the required filing fee. (ECF No. 1.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 6, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00144-BAS-BGS Document 5 Filed 02/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3