Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01931/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01931-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

17cv1931-CAB-KSC

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

Raymond Pacello, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Amy Jo Pacello,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv1931-CAB-KSC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

On, September 22, 2017, Plaintiff Raymond Pacello (“Plaintiff”) filed a Notice of 

Removal, wherein he seeks to remove a state court dissolution proceeding (the “state 

action”). [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis 

(“IFP”). [Doc. No. 2.] For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). But, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the court 

may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit without payment of 

fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, 

showing that he or she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “An affidavit in support of an 

IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs 

and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 

Cir. 2015). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, 

Case 3:17-cv-01931-CAB-KSC Document 3 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv1931-CAB-KSC

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

definiteness and certainty.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The granting or 

denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis in civil cases is within the sound discretion 

of the district court. Venerable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (citations 

omitted). 

In his IFP application, Plaintiff states that he has a monthly income of $2,256.00

per month. [Doc. No. 2 at 2.] He also states that he has $600 in cash. Id. Finally, 

Plaintiff states that his monthly expenses are $1,970.00. [Doc. No. 2 at 5.] Given that 

Plaintiff’s monthly income exceeds his monthly expenses by almost $300, the Court is 

not persuaded Plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the filing fee and “still afford the 

necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. Therefore, the Court DENIES 

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Further, the Court cautions Plaintiff 

that the right to remove a case from state to federal court is vested exclusively in the 

defendant in a case. 28 U.S.C. §1441(a). Here, Plaintiff is also the Plaintiff/Petitioner in 

the state court action. Moreover, if Plaintiff is attempting to remove the more recent 

TRO proceedings in the state court action, proceedings that are ancillary to an action 

pending in state court cannot be removed to federal court if the underlying claim is being 

litigated in state court. GE Betz, Inc. v. Zee Co., Inc., 718 F.3d 615, 623 (7th Cir. 2013).

Plaintiff shall have until October 11, 2017, to pay the entire filing fee. If the filing 

fee is not paid by October 11, 2017, the Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE the case without 

further order from the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01931-CAB-KSC Document 3 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2