Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02334/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02334-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 - 07CV2334 WQH (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM H. CARTER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07CV2334 WQH (WMc)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

SECOND MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

vs.

COUNTRY WIDE MORTGAGE,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. #

4).

DISCUSSION & ORDER

On December 13, 2007, Plaintiff William H. Carter filed a Complaint against Defendant

Countrywide Home Mortgage accompanied with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. # 1,

2). On December 18, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and

required that Plaintiff either (1) pay the requisite filing fee, or (2) submit a more detailed motion to

proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. # 3). On December 21, 2007, Plaintiff filed a second motion to

proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. # 4).

I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

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

other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

Case 3:07-cv-02334-WQH-WMC Document 8 Filed 01/03/08 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 - 07CV2334 WQH (WMc)

An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay only if the party 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). “To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114,

116 (9th Cir. 1965). 

Plaintiff’s second motion to proceed in forma pauperis is identical to his first, except that

Plaintiff notes in his second motion that he is in “survival mode” and that all of his property “is in

foreclosure.” (Doc. # 5). Plaintiff states that he is still not employed, but receives $1,650.00

per/month in benefits from the City of San Diego and the San Diego Unified School District. Plaintiff

reiterates that he has $300.00 in two separate bank accounts and owns a 1992 LEXUS automobile.

Finally, Plaintiff states that he supports Kristen Carter and has $43,000 in student loan and credit card

debt.

After considering Plaintiff’s motion and the accompanying affidavit, the Court determines that

Plaintiff can afford to pay the filing fee in this case. Plaintiff has sufficient monthly income and assets

to pay the required $350.00, and Plaintiff’s affidavit does not set forth facts which would entitle him

to proceed in forma pauperis. In addition, Plaintiff fails to (a) list the amount of his take home salary

during his last period of employment, (b) indicate how much he contributes to support Kristen Carter,

and (c) detail any monthly expenses, and in particular, his monthly contribution to credit and student

loan debt. The Court concludes that Plaintiff is not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 4) is DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff shall, on or before Friday, February 22, 2008, either (1) pay the requisite $350.00 filing fee,

or (2) submit a more detailed and comprehensive motion to proceed in forma pauperis. If Plaintiff

fails to submit payment or an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis on or before February 22,

2008, the Court will close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 3, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02334-WQH-WMC Document 8 Filed 01/03/08 Page 2 of 2