Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02004/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02004-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

18-CV-2004 JLS (MDD)

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

BRYANT ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JIMMY PALMER, and REGGIE COX,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-2004 JLS (MDD)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(ECF No. 2)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Bryant Robinson’s Motion to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis, (“IFP Mot.,” ECF No. 2).

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 

prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A 

federal court may authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of 

fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that she is 

unable to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Case 3:18-cv-02004-JLS-MDD Document 7 Filed 12/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-CV-2004 JLS (MDD)

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

In the present case, Mr. Robinson has submitted an affidavit indicating his total 

monthly income is $910 (received through disability payments) and that he is currently 

unemployed. IFP Mot. 2–4. Mr. Robinson also indicates that he has assets consisting of a

Cadillac DeVilles. Id. Mr. Robinson’s monthly expenses seem to total $607. Id. 

Importantly, Mr. Robinson does not include his current assets. Because the IFP application 

does not include his current assets, the Court cannot adequately assess whether Mr. 

Robinson can pay the filing fee. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Proceed IFP.

CONCLUSION 

Given the foregoing, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff—within thirty (30) days of the date on 

which this Order is electronically docketed—may either (1) file a new Motion to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis addressing the Court’s above-mentioned concerns, or (2) pay the $400 

filing fee.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2018

 

1 The Court also notes that if Plaintiff again moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis the Court will 

be required to sua sponte screen Plaintiff’s underlying Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 

Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are 

not limited to prisoners.”). As noted in the Court’s Order to Show Cause (“OSC,” ECF No. 4) the Court 

has serious doubts as to whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Robinson’s claims. Mr. 

Robinson’s Reply to the OSC, ECF No. 6, did not adequately address those doubts. 

Case 3:18-cv-02004-JLS-MDD Document 7 Filed 12/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2