Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02347/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02347-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

– 1 – 14cv2347 

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 

GRACE H. RAUCH, 

 Plaintiff, 

Case No. 14-cv-02347-BAS(DHB) 

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 2); AND 

(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 v. 

PATRICK R. DONAHOE, et al.

 Defendants. 

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff Grace H. Rauch commenced this action under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Patrick R. Donahoe, on behalf of the United States Postal 

Service, Marilyn McKee, Li Churchill, Sean Salter, Alfonzo Forster, Michelle 

Tiberia, Frank Dominguez, Jojo Bardiago, Segred Alexander, Will Tagart, and 

Paulette, seeking money damages. On the same day, she also filed a motion 

seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) For the reasons 

outlined below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP motion. 

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 

Case 3:14-cv-02347-BAS-DHB Document 4 Filed 10/08/14 Page 1 of 3
 – 2 – 14cv2347 

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 

has satisfied the statute’s 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 evenhanded 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 in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for IFP status. Plaintiff 

Case 3:14-cv-02347-BAS-DHB Document 4 Filed 10/08/14 Page 2 of 3
 – 3 – 14cv2347 

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 

states she is employed and taking home $861.03 in salary or wages for an 

unspecified pay period. (IFP Mot. at ¶ 2.) While Plaintiff does not list her monthly 

expenses, Plaintiff states she has no dependents or debts other than car payments. 

(Id. at ¶¶ 6, 8-9.) On its own, this information would be insufficient for the Court 

to make a determination as to Plaintiff’s IFP status. However, the Court finds it 

appropriate to take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s concurrently filed Request for 

Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 3), which contains additional financial 

information concerning Plaintiff. In her Request for Appointment of Counsel, 

Plaintiff states that she earns $4,000 per month and her monthly expenses total 

$1,717. (ECF No. 3 at pp. 5, 7.) Plaintiff further asserts that she is married and her 

spouse also earns $4,000 per month. While Plaintiff indicates that she is separated 

from her spouse, even based on her salary alone, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 

adequate funds to pay the required filing fee. 

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

proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), and DISMISSES WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE the complaint. Pursuant to this order, Plaintiff is granted 30 days’ 

leave to pay the filing fee required to maintain this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1914, or to submit additional documentation regarding her financial status. IF 

PLAINTIFF CHOOSES TO FILE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

REGARDING HER POVERTY, SHE MUST ATTACH A COPY OF THIS 

ORDER. Additionally, Plaintiff is reminded that an IFP application is made under 

penalty of perjury, and any false statements may result in dismissal of her claims, 

imprisonment of not more than five years, or a fine. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621, 3571. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 8, 2014 

 

Case 3:14-cv-02347-BAS-DHB Document 4 Filed 10/08/14 Page 3 of 3