Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01813/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01813-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY TUCK,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17cv1813-GPC(NLS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

[Dkt. No. 5.]

v.

STATES RECOVERY SYSTEMS,

INC.; EXPERIAN, a national credit

reporting agency [CRA]; DOES 1-25.

Defendants.

On September 7, 2017, Plaintiff Roy Tuck, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint

alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Practices Act (“TCPA”), the federal

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), the Fair Credit Reporting Act

(“FCRA”) and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (Dkt. No. 

1.) Concurrently, Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No.

2.) 

Discussion

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

- 1 - [17cv1813-GPC(NLS)]

Case 3:17-cv-01813-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 10/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
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

of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1 An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure

to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to § 1915(a).

See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook,

169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). The plaintiff must submit an affidavit

demonstrating his inability to pay the filing fee, and the affidavit must include a

complete statement of the plaintiff’s assets. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The supporting

affidavit must be made “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United

States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981).

As noted by another court in this district, “Roy Tuck and his wife Deborah Tuck,

together with their sonRichardCaruso and mother-in-law Clarice Tuck, appear to have

developed a cottage industry suing their creditors for violations of the TCPA, the

FDCPA and the FCRA. In each case, the parties request to proceed IFP, listing

liabilities that far exceed assets. Curiously, however, despite the fact that they have

received settlementsfrom approximately a dozen different defendants, their assets and

cash in their bank accounts remained unchanged.” Tuck v. Pacer Service Ctr. U.S.

Courts, Case No. 17cv1720-BAS-KSC, 2017 WL 4050356, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 12,

2017). As examples, the court provided a list of eleven cases where Tuck, his wife,

and/or their son filed cases and settled with the defendants during the past two years

in the Southern District of California. Id. 

Moreover, in his motion, Tuck admits that he has received settlement payments

from lawsuits he filed but that they “have been meager at best.” Contrary to the IFP

statute, none of the settlements amounts Tuck received in the past 12 months are listed

in his motion. Plaintiff has failed to submit an affidavit “with some particularity,

definiteness and certainty” demonstrating his inability to pay the filing fee. See

McQuade, 647 F.2d at 940. Instead, Plaintiff only indicate $400/month income or loan

1

In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee

of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee

Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2014)). The additional $50 administrative fee does not apply to persons

granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.

- 2 - [17cv1813-GPC(NLS)]

Case 3:17-cv-01813-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 10/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
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

received from his mother for being her caregiver. Therefore, because Plaintiff has

failed provide a complete statement of his assets, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion

to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP and DISMISSES the

complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days to pay the filing fee

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914 or to submit additional supporting documentation to

support his IFP application. If Plaintiff fails to comply with the Court’s direction, the

complaint shall remain dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 4, 2017

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - [17cv1813-GPC(NLS)]

Case 3:17-cv-01813-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 10/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3