Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01816/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01816-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1331ed Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

1 

18cv1816-LAB (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 

DENNIS BOYD, pro se, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

FALLBROOK UNION 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv1816-LAB (KSC) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

 Plaintiff Dennis Boyd filed his complaint on August 3, 2018, along with a 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The Court denied his motion (Docket 

no. 6), explaining the problems with his motion and giving him an opportunity to 

file a renewed IFP motion that corrected the problems. He filed a second motion 

which failed to correct the problems, and introduced new ones. The Court denied 

that motion, explaining the problems and ordering him no later than January 22, 

2019 to either pay the filing fee or else file a renewed IFP motion that corrected all 

the problems that had been pointed out to him. In particular, the order pointed out 

five matters that a renewed IFP motion must address: 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:18-cv-01816-LAB-KSC Document 10 Filed 02/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18cv1816-LAB (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

1. How it is that he is receiving dividends or interest but owns no investments; 

2. Why the statement of monthly expenses in his second IFP motion was 

about $1000 higher than the statement in his first motion; 

3. Whether he is receiving payments or has access to any money as a result 

of the reverse mortgage on his $550,000 home, and if so, how much; 

4. Whether he expects money to become available as a result of the reverse 

mortgage, and if so, when; and 

5. Whether he is currently in bankruptcy. 

(Docket no. 8 at 6:13–22.) 

The order cautioned him that failure to either pay the filing fee or file a 

renewed IFP motion within the time permitted could result in dismissal of the case. 

Boyd was particularly cautioned to obey the deadline. Because he had already 

had two opportunities to correct the problems that were pointed out to him, he was 

also cautioned that he should not expect to be given any more chances. 

 Boyd failed to file an IFP motion within the time permitted. Instead, well after 

the deadline he submitted a renewed IFP motion that ignored the Court’s directive 

to address the five issues, and introduced even more problems. Because it was 

late and did not comply with the Court’s order, the Court rejected it for filing. 

 Even if the Court had accepted the motion for filing, it would have been 

denied on the merits. The rejected IFP motion not only ignores problems the Court 

identified earlier, but introduces new ones. Instead of explaining the discrepancies 

between his first and second IFP motions, the latest motion simply gives a new set 

of figures, creating even more doubt about its accuracy. It also says that he owns 

a second car, something neither of the earlier motions mentioned. He attached a 

two-page explanation to his form, but most of it focuses on the merits of his claims, 

not on his ability to pay the filing fee. Only the final paragraph mentions his 

finances, and even then only briefly. All it says is that because of a bad investment, 

he had to file for bankruptcy to save his house. It does not say whether he is still 

Case 3:18-cv-01816-LAB-KSC Document 10 Filed 02/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18cv1816-LAB (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

in bankruptcy. It does not say how long ago he filed for bankruptcy, or whether he 

is still in bankruptcy. It does not mention the reverse mortgage. It does not explain 

where his investment income is coming from. And it does not explain why the 

financial information in his affidavits keeps changing. 

 Parties bringing civil actions in federal district courts (other than habeas 

corpus petitions) must pay the filing fee required under 28 U.S.C. ' 1914(a), unless 

they are granted leave to proceed IFP. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 

1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). An 

IFP application must be supported by an affidavit stating with some definiteness 

and particularity the facts establishing the applicant’s poverty. United States v. 

McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam). The Court has 

discretion to make factual inquires and to deny the application when an applicant 

is either unable or unwilling to verify his poverty. Id. For example, the Court is 

entitled to consider what access an applicant has to assets that might enable him 

to pay the filing fee. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1236 (9th Cir. 

2015). In this case, Boyd’s affidavits include references to other assets, such as a 

$550,000 house and unidentified income-generating investments. Although the 

Court specifically instructed Boyd to explain these references, he proved either 

unable or unwilling to do so. His affidavits have also been inconsistent, and 

although he was directed to explain the discrepancies, he has not done that either. 

 Boyd has failed to pay the filing fee and has failed to successfully move to 

proceed IFP, even after being given multiple opportunities to do so. This action is 

therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 5, 2019 

 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-01816-LAB-KSC Document 10 Filed 02/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3