Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01836/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01836-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1346 U.S. Defendant

---

- 1 -

19cv1836

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

ERICKA PAEZ fka ERICKA KORB,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, 

governmental entity,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-1836-BAS-AHG

ORDER PROVISIONALLY 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

[ECF No. 2]

On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff Ericka Paez, proceeding pro se, commenced this 

action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. (ECF No. 1.) The 

same day, Plaintiff also filed an application seeking leave to proceed without prepaying 

fees or costs, also known as proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) For the 

reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s 

application to proceed IFP. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an indigent litigant who is unable to pay the fees required 

to commence a legal action may petition a court to proceed without making such 

prepayment. 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 

Case 3:19-cv-01836-BAS-AHG Document 3 Filed 09/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

19cv1836

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

requirement of indigency.”).

It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 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 

(internal quotations omitted). 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). 

District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant can pay 

the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., Stehouwer v. 

Hennessey, 841 F. Supp. 316, 321 (N.D. Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other grounds, 

Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that a district court did not abuse 

its discretion in requiring a partial fee payment from a prisoner who had a $14.61 monthly 

salary and who received $110 per month from family). Moreover, “[i]n forma pauperis 

status may be acquired and lost during the course of litigation.” Wilson v. Dir. of Div. of 

Adult Insts., 2009 WL 311150, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009) (citing Stehouwer, 841 F. 

Supp. at 321); see also Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 1995) 

(holding that a plaintiff who was initially permitted to proceed in forma pauperis should 

be required to pay his $120 filing fee out of a $900 settlement). In addition, 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) (quoting Jefferson v. United 

States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). 

Having read and considered Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails 

to meet the requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Most notably, considering

the total monthly income and cash-on-hand figures provided by Plaintiff, it appears that 

Plaintiff has a net monthly income of $1,400 even after accounting for all average monthly 

Case 3:19-cv-01836-BAS-AHG Document 3 Filed 09/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

19cv1836

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

expenses enumerated in the application. Further, Plaintiff attests that she expects her

monthly income of $2,583 to more than double next month to $6,000. (ECF No. 2 at 1.) 

She also attests that, in addition to a daughter and son, she supports a stepson for whom 

she has 50% custody but does not indicate whether she receives or makes any child support 

payments. (Id. at 1, 3, 4.) 

Plaintiff notes that she expects major changes to her financial situation over the next 

12 months but failed to explain her reasons on an attached sheet as instructed. (Id. at 5.) 

Plaintiff also does not specify the monthly expense of the “significant uninsured medical 

expenses” incurred over the past two years and does not indicate whether the $25,000 in 

credit card debt requires payments over-and-above the $1,200 monthly installment 

payment indicated on her application. (Id. at 4–5.) As such, the Court cannot evaluate 

how these additional expenses would factor into the analysis of her ability to prepay the 

$400 filing fee. See McQuade, 647 F.2d at 940.

The Court therefore finds, on the facts presented, that Plaintiff has the means to 

prepay the required filing fee even without acceptable sacrifices to other expenses. 

Plaintiff’s IFP application does not indicate that requiring Plaintiff to pay the required $400

fee would impair her ability to obtain the necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339. 

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not satisfy the requirements to proceed IFP. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (ECF No. 2.) To proceed IFP, Plaintiff must refile the IFP 

application and include more specific information regarding the aforementioned sources of 

income and monthly expenses. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01836-BAS-AHG Document 3 Filed 09/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3