Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01000/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01000-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:7703 Discrimination - Review of Agency Act

---

1

17-CV-1000 JLS (AGS)

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

DEREK J. MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-CV-1000 JLS (AGS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING 

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 2)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Derek J. Morris’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”). (“IFP Mot.,” ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff appears to have appealed his removal 

by the Navy on allegedly discriminatory grounds to the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit, which recently transferred the case to this Court because it lacked 

jurisdiction to review Plaintiff’s appeal. (Compl., ECF No. 1-26 (Order Transferring 

Case).) The Federal Circuit also transferred Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, which is 

now pending before the Court.

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay 

the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

Case 3:17-cv-01000-JLS-AGS Document 3 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-CV-1000 JLS (AGS)

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

§ 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court 

may authorize the commencement of an action without the prepayment of fees if the party 

submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing that he is unable to pay the 

required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In the present case, Plaintiff has not prepaid the required $400 filing fee, but has 

instead filed an application to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (See generally 

IFP Mot.) “One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain [the] benefits of the in forma 

pauperis statute,” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960), and “there 

is no formula set by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor 

enough to earn IFP Status,” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). 

However, a plaintiff must allege poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and 

certainty.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. This is because proceeding IFP is a privilege and 

not a right, and the decision to grant or deny an IFP petition “is a matter within the 

discretion of the trial court . . . .” Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963).

In the present case, Plaintiff’s affidavit indicates that he has an average monthly 

income from retirement benefits of $2,500 and expects the same payment next month. (IFP 

Mot. 3–4.1) Additionally, Plaintiff’s spouse has an average monthly income of $9,348 

(from employment and real property), and expects the same payment next month. (Id.) 

Plaintiff estimates his monthly expenses to be $3,060, and his spouse’s expenses to be

$7,149, including $500 for recreation and entertainment. (Id. at 6–7.) Plaintiff also owns a 

home valued at $450,000 and another piece of real estate valued at $400,000. (Id. at 5.) He 

also owns a car valued at $2,500, and his spouse owns a car valued at $15,000. (Id.) Plaintiff 

has savings in the amount of $1,500, and his spouse has savings in the amount of $3,500. 

(Id.) Plaintiff also indicates that he has paid or will pay an attorney $10,000 to assist him 

with this case. (Id. at 7.) 

 

1 Pin citations to docketed material refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each 

page.

Case 3:17-cv-01000-JLS-AGS Document 3 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-CV-1000 JLS (AGS)

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

As Plaintiff’s Motion currently stands, the Court is not convinced that IFP status 

should be granted. Plaintiff principally argues that he “is not willing to exhaust his veteran 

pension to school loans and a matter involving the Merit Systems Protection and 

Department of the Navy,” (id. at 3), but his affidavit demonstrates that he—and his 

spouse—can cover the initial filing fee. Plaintiff further argues that his spouse “has nothing 

to do with the federal question jurisdiction” of this case, (id.), but Plaintiff does not 

otherwise declare that his spouse is unwilling or unable to assist with the payment of this 

initial filing fee. 

Because Plaintiff’s IFP Motion fails due to the above deficiencies, the Court need 

not address the additional requirements for granting an IFP Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

However, the Court nonetheless notes that it appears Plaintiff’s complaint may fail for lack

of a short and plain statement, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a),2and for failure to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 5 U.S.C. §§ 7702, 

7703(b)(2).

CONCLUSION

For these reasons:

(1) Plaintiff’s IFP Motion (ECF No. 2) is DENIED and the action is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prepay the $400 filing fee required 

by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

(2) Plaintiff is GRANTED forty-five (45) days from the date on which this Order 

is electronically docketed in which to re-open his case by either: (1) paying the entire $400 

statutory and administrative filing fee, or (2) filing a new IFP Motion that addresses the

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

 

2 This may be a function of Plaintiff initially filing his case with the Federal Circuit, so Plaintiff will have 

an opportunity to conform his filing to the requirements of the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of California.

Case 3:17-cv-01000-JLS-AGS Document 3 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-CV-1000 JLS (AGS)

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

above shortcomings identified by the Court. Failure to re-open this case in the time allotted 

may result in a dismissal of this case with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01000-JLS-AGS Document 3 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4