Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00563/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00563-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

– 1 –

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

SEONG JAE PAEK and BONA 

PAEK,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 19-cv-563-BAS-KSC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

[ECF No. 2]

v.

LEE CISSNA, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Seong Jae Paek and Bona Paek have filed a complaint pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1361 to compel Defendants to complete Plaintiffs’ I-485 applications to 

adjust their status to permanent residents. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs also filed a joint 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a litigant who because of indigency is unable to pay 

the required fees or security to commence a legal action may petition the 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 

Case 3:19-cv-00563-BAS-KSC Document 3 Filed 03/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
– 2 –

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

proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 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. At the same time, however, “the same even-handed 

care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, 

at public expense . . . 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). Finally, the facts as to the affiant’s poverty must be stated “with 

some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 

938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981).

Here, Plaintiffs joint IFP motion is improper. Each Plaintiff must file a 

separate motion detailing his or her own financial situation. Further, even if the Court 

were to consider the pending IFP motion, it would conclude that there is insufficient 

information to determine whether Plaintiffs should be permitted to proceed IFP.

Plaintiffs list they have $0 in income, $0 expected income, no assets, and no monthly 

expenses. Plaintiffs state they are students, but the Court finds it doubtful that college 

students have absolutely no income and no expenses. Plaintiffs must have some way 

to pay for school, housing, and food. Without further explanation, the current IFP 

motion is insufficient. Plaintiffs may submit separate IFP motions. The motion is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (ECF No. 2.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 28, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00563-BAS-KSC Document 3 Filed 03/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2