Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02030/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02030-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOEL LEMUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF MERCED and 

DEFENDANT OFFICER DOES 1 

THROUGH 50,

Defendant.

1:14-cv-02030-KJM-GSA

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. 2)

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Noel Lemus (“Plaintiff”), represented by counsel, filed this action on December 

19, 2014 (Doc. 1) and requests to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Doc. 2). For the reasons that 

follow, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s application be DENIED.

II. DISCUSSION

a. Legal Standard

An indigent party may be granted permission to proceed “in forma pauperis” after 

submitting an affidavit showing his or her inability to pay the requested fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

The determination whether a party can proceed IFP is a “matter within the discretion of the trial 

court and in civil actions for damages should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances.” 

Schweitzer v. Scott, 469 F.Supp. 1017, 1019 (C.D. Cal. 1979), quoting Weller v. Dickinson, 314 

Case 1:14-cv-02030-KJM-GSA Document 5 Filed 01/06/15 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

F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963) (“a court should be more willing to entertain an application of this 

nature in a criminal proceeding, or a Title VII proceeding, than, say, in a civil action for money 

damages”). When examining an application for IFP status, “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) (“petitioners with 

modest cash reserves are not paupers within the intendment of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) for the 

purpose of filing fees, initial service of process costs and the like”).

b. Plaintiff Does Not Qualify Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

Plaintiff represents that, until June 2014, he was employed by the City of Gilroy and 

earned over $9,000 per month. Up until October 23, 2014, he was also receiving biweekly 

payments of $2,145 for worker’s compensation. His wife, who is currently employed by the 

Gilroy Unified School District, earns $2,859 per month. Notably, Plaintiff also maintains at least 

two separate bank accounts, but declines in his application to state the current balance in either 

account. (Doc. 2.) The only currently existing debts burdening plaintiff are a Capitol One charge 

card with a balance of $1,500 (requiring a monthly payment of $150) and a Xerox credit line with 

a balance of $6,000 (requiring a monthly payment of $145). Id.

Based on these representations, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed 

without prepayment of the $400 filing fee. Up until October 2014 (just two months before this 

suit was filed), Plaintiff and his wife were receiving over $6,000 per month (2 biweekly payments 

of $2,145 plus a monthly salary of $2,859). These facts, coupled with Plaintiff’s relative lack of 

significant debt, do not support his application. 

Notably, Plaintiff does not state the balance of either of his two bank accounts in his 

request for IFP status, another factor that weighs against the grant of the application. U.S. v. 

Shadley, No. 2:09-MC-80 WBS GGH, 2010 WL 2509910, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 17, 2010) 

(denying request to proceed IFP where applicant “failed to adequately document her financial 

status”).

In sum, very little suggests that this case should fall within the “exceptional 

Case 1:14-cv-02030-KJM-GSA Document 5 Filed 01/06/15 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

circumstances” justifying IFP status. 

III. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends that:

1. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied; and,

2. Plaintiff be required to submit the filing fee of $400.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the Honorable Kimberly J. 

Mueller pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1). Within 

fifteen (15) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02030-KJM-GSA Document 5 Filed 01/06/15 Page 3 of 3