Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01755/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01755-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 11cv0892

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA DOE FATHER #1,

Petitioner/Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM C. VICKERY, in his official

capacity as administrative director of the

courts, EARL H. MAAS III, in his official

capacity as judge of the Superior Court of the

State of California, for the County of San

Diego, BARBARA PRUITT, in her official

capacity as Director of Family Court Services

San Diego and individually, CHERYL W.

BRIERTON, in her official capacity as

General Counsel for Family Court Services

San Diego and individually, COUNTY OF

SAN DIEGO, JANINE ALLVORD, in her

official capacity asa Child Protective Social

Worker and individually, AND DOES 1-100,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.11-cv-01755-AJB-JMA

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS STATUS

On August 5, 2011, California DOE Father #1 , a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Motion

to Proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 3] of case number 3:11-cv-01755-AJB-JMA to this Court. 

Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff’s declaration of inability to pay costs or give security is

insufficient to permit Plaintiff 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.

Case 3:11-cv-01755-AJB-JMA Document 4 Filed 10/13/11 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 11cv0892

§ 1915. “To proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116

(9th Cir.1965). One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of statute dealing with proceedings in forma pauperis in federal courts. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948).

The motion, however, must state facts as to affiant's poverty with some particularity, definiteness and

certainty. Jefferson v. U.S., 277 F. 2d 723 (9th Cir. 1960). 

The Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis lacks merit because:

• Plaintiff is not incarcerated.

• Plaintiff has a stated average income of $1925 per month.

• Plaintiff owns a vehicle.

• Plaintiff’s listed debts and obligations do not rise to the level of poverty necessitated

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

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

on the Plaintiff’s claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In light of this information, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and the Complaint is

DISMISSED without prejudice. Pursuant to this Order, however, Plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to

pay the $350 filing fee required to maintain this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 7, 2011

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01755-AJB-JMA Document 4 Filed 10/13/11 Page 2 of 2