Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00852/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00852-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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 - 10cv852W

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN D CROUCH,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-852 W (AJB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. No. 2.)

vs.

COLORADO STATE BANK &

TRUST; PROBATE COURT OF

DENVER, COLORADO,

Defendants.

On April 21, 2010, Plaintiff John D Crouch (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed

a complaint to challenge the denial of a scheduled trust-fund distribution. (Doc. No. 1.)

The same day, Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. No.

2.) The Court takes the matters under submission and without oral argument. See S.D.

Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP

request. 

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

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

grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“[28 U.S.C. §] 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

Case 3:10-cv-00852-W-AJB Document 3 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 10cv852W

completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335

U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948); see also Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir.

1995) (“[T]he filing fee, while discretionary, should not take the prisoner’s last dollar.”

[citations]). Rather, to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), an affidavit

need only state 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.” Adkins,

335 U.S., at 339. At the same time, however, the court must “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).

Here, Plaintiff indicates that he is currently unemployed, has no checking or

savings account, and is currently living in a County of San Diego mental health facility.

Given that Plaintiff’s current monthly obligations in all likelihood outpace his monthly

income, the Court finds that forcing Plaintiff to pay the filing fee would deprive him of

the necessities of life.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. However,

if it appears at any time in the future that Plaintiff’s financial picture has improved for

any reason, the Court will direct Plaintiff to pay the filing fee to the Clerk of the Court.

This includes any recovery Plaintiff may realize from this suit or others, and any

assistance Plaintiff may receive from family or the government. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 30, 2010

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00852-W-AJB Document 3 Filed 04/30/10 Page 2 of 2