Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00634/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00634-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331cv Fed. Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

18cv634-MMA (JMA)

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

JEFF SIKKING; and BARBARA 

SIKKING,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RICHARDSON GRISWOLD; and SAN 

DIEGO CITY ATTORNEY'S & CODE 

E,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv634-MMA (JMA)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. No. 6]

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 of this Court’s March 29, 2018 Order denying 

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“Order”). Doc. No. 6.

“A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if ‘(1) the district court is presented with 

newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial 

decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling 

law.’” Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Zimmerman v. 

City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001)).

Plaintiffs contend the Order contains several inaccuracies, which require the Court 

to grant their motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. No. 6 at 2-4. First, 

Case 3:18-cv-00634-MMA-JMA Document 7 Filed 04/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv634-MMA (JMA)

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

Plaintiffs contend “the court incorrectly stated that: ‘. . . plaintiffs own a $6,000,000 (6 

million) piece of property.’” Id. at 2. Plaintiffs state that their “home is at best work 

$500,000 on its best day, more like to be in the upper $400,000 . . . .” Id. Second, 

Plaintiffs contend the Court incorrectly stated that “‘ . . . Plaintiffs have two (2) bank 

accounts that have a total of $1,080 in them . . . .’” Id. at 2. Plaintiffs concede that they 

do have that amount in their accounts, but that they must pay bills from that account, 

which will leave them with $60 to $70. Id. at 3. Third, Plaintiffs assert that the Court 

“failed to recognize that on one property there are five (5) tenants who pay rent. Out of 

the five tenants only three (3) have been paying rent . . . .” Id. at 3. Fourth, Plaintiffs 

state that the Court incorrectly stated that “‘ . . . plaintiffs are willing to pay an attorney 

$80,000 to assist them . . .’” Id. at 3. Plaintiffs assert that this is “totally incorrect”

because they are seeking an injunction against an attorney who has “gouged plaintiffs 

charging them double sometimes triple times for services he has not rendered.” Id.

After reviewing the instant motion, the Order, and the underlying motion to 

proceed IFP, the Court concludes that it did not err. For example, Plaintiffs’ motion to 

proceed IFP does in fact state that the value of Plaintiff’s home is $6,000,000.00, that 

Plaintiffs’ bank accounts contain $1,088.00, that no person, business, or organization 

owes Plaintiffs’ money, and that they have or will spend $80,000.00 for expenses or 

attorney fees in conjunction with this lawsuit. Doc. No. 3. 

However, even if Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed IFP included the information 

contained in the instant motion, the Court would still deny IFP status to Plaintiffs. As 

discussed in the Order, Plaintiffs receive a total combined monthly income of $9,850.00, 

have other real estate valued at $1,200,000.00, and two cars valued at $3,500.00 and 

$900.00 respectively. Doc. Nos. 4, 3 at 2-3. As stated in the instant motion, Plaintiffs 

also have a home conservatively valued between $400,000.00 and $500,000.00. Doc. 

No. 6 at 2. Plaintiffs’ total monthly expenses of $9,750.00, which includes costs 

associated with the bills referenced in the instant motion, is still $100.00 less than 

Plaintiff’s monthly income. See Doc. Nos. 3, 6. As a result, the Court still cannot 

Case 3:18-cv-00634-MMA-JMA Document 7 Filed 04/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv634-MMA (JMA)

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

conclude that paying the court filing fees would impair Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain the 

necessities of life. See Riegel v. Colvin, No. 15-CV-1342 W (MDD), 2015 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 102117, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015) (denying the plaintiff’s IFP motion where 

she had “a net-positive monthly household source of money of approximately $170.00” 

and the filing fee was $400.00); Clark v. Soc. Sec. Appeals Council, No. 16cv2710-JLS 

(AGS), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15728, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2017) (denying IFP 

motion where Plaintiff received $5,500 monthly but reported having no money in any 

bank account); Morris v. Dep’t of the Navy, No. 17-CV-1000 JLS (AGS), 2017 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 95106, at *2-4 (S.D. Cal. June 20, 2017) (denying IFP motion where Plaintiff and 

his spouse had a combined monthly income of $11,848, monthly expenses of $10,209, 

owned two real estate properties valued at a combined total of $850,000, owned two cars 

valued at a combined total of $17,500, had a total savings of $5,000, and were willing to 

pay $10,000 for an attorney).

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. Doc. No. 

6. Plaintiffs are reminded that on or before May 14, 2018, Plaintiffs must pay the 

requisite $400.00 filing fee. If Plaintiffs do not pay the required filing fee by the above 

date, this case will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00634-MMA-JMA Document 7 Filed 04/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3