Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00784/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00784-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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 - 11-cv-784-AJB -BGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HSBC BANK U.S.A.,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:11-cv-784-AJB-BGS

vs. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

DORA A. CARBAJAL, [DOC. NO. 2]

Defendant.

On April 14, 2011, Dora A. Carbajal, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of

Removal of case number 37-2010-00032112-CL-UD-SC from Superior Court of California, County

of San Diego, to this Court [Doc. No. 1], along with a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis [Doc.

No. 2]. Defendant Carbajal submitted a declaration in support of a request to proceed in forma

pauperis in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and Local Rule 3.2(a).

The Court finds that the Defendant’s declaration of inability to pay costs or give security is

insufficient to permit Defendant to proceed in forma pauperis. Permission to file a petition for writ

of mandamus in forma pauperis will not be granted unless there is some merit in the petition. 28

U.S.C.A. § 1915. Although one need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of statute dealing

with proceedings in forma pauperis in federal courts, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis must

state facts as to affiant's poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty. See 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 1915; Jefferson v. U.S., 277 F. 2d 723 (9th Cir. 1960). The Defendant’s motion fails to state with

particularity, definiteness and certainty that such funds are insufficient to make such expenses and

Case 3:11-cv-00784-AJB-BGS Document 3 Filed 09/19/11 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 - 11-cv-784-AJB -BGS

pay under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) because of the following reasons:

• Defendant states current employment with wages of $1,800.00 per month.

• Defendant has a primary residence worth $270,000.

• Defendant owns a 2006 Hyundai Sonata outright.

• Defendant’s expenses of “utilities, water, food, gas and any other expenses that may

occur” are not stated with particularity.

• Defendant has noted no debts or obligations except litigation. 

It is under the Court's discretion to grant or deny permission to proceed in forma pauperis

based on the Defendant’s claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Without further evidence, the Court lacks

specific facts to find that the Defendant is not able to pay the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 

In light of this information, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Carbajal’s Motion to Proceed in forma

pauperis is DENIED and the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Pursuant to this Order,

however, Defendant is granted 30 days leave to pay the $350 filing fee required to maintain this

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, or to submit additional documentation regarding the

Defendant’s economic status. IF PLAINTIFF CHOOSES TO FILE ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION REGARDING HER POVERTY, SHE MUST ATTACH A COPY OF THIS

ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 16, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00784-AJB-BGS Document 3 Filed 09/19/11 Page 2 of 2