Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00626/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00626-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 47:0227(b)(3) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

---

– 1 – 17cv626

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

DEBORAH TUCK,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-00626-BAS-MDD

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

[ECF No. 2]

v.

MERCHANTS CREDIT 

ASSOCIATION, 

Defendant.

On March 28, 2017, Plaintiff Deborah Tuck, proceeding pro se, commenced 

this action against Defendant Merchants Credit Association alleging violations of the

Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., the Federal Debt 

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., and the California Rosenthal Fair 

Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788, et seq. (ECF No. 1.) On the 

same day, Plaintiff also filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP.

The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. Cal. 

Case 3:17-cv-00626-BAS-MDD Document 4 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 17cv626

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

Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d on other grounds,

506 U.S. 194 (1993) (holding that “Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing 

court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied 

the statute’s requirement of indigency”). It is well-settled that a party need not be 

completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours 

& Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states that one cannot because 

of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and still be able to provide himself 

and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. At the same time, however, 

“the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not 

squandered to underwrite, at public expense, . . . the remonstrances of a suitor who is 

financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. 

Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984).

District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant 

can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See e.g., Stehouwer 

v. Hennessey, 841 F. Supp. 316, 321 (N.D. Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other 

grounds, Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that a district 

court did not abuse its discretion in requiring a partial fee payment from a prisoner 

who had a $14.61 monthly salary and who received $110 per month from family). 

Moreover, “in forma pauperis status may be acquired and lost during the course of 

litigation.” Wilson v. Dir. of Div. of Adult Insts., No. CIV S-06-0791, 2009 WL 

311150, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009) (citing Stehouwer, 841 F. Supp. at 321); see 

also Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 1995) (holding that a 

plaintiff who was initially permitted to proceed in forma pauperis should be required 

to pay his $120 filing fee out of a $900 settlement). Finally, the facts as to the affiant’s 

poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” United 

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

Having read and considered Plaintiff’s IFP application, the Court finds that 

Case 3:17-cv-00626-BAS-MDD Document 4 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 17cv626

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

Plaintiff meets the requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for IFP status. Plaintiff is 

unemployed and unable to work because of disability. (IFP Mot. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff states 

that her monthly income is approximately $876.00, and that she has $80.00 on hand, 

but her monthly expenses total $1,440.00, including $650.00 for rent. (IFP Mot. ¶¶ 1, 

4, 8.) Moreover, although Plaintiff indicates that she and her husband each own an 

automobile, she also attests that her only checking account is overdrawn by $400.00.

(Id. ¶¶ 4, 5.) Thus, taking into account Plaintiff’s overall financial picture, the Court 

finds that requiring Plaintiff to pay the court filing fees in this case would impair her

ability to meet basic living expenses. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339.

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) However, if it appears at any time in the 

future that Plaintiff’s financial picture has improved for any reason, the Court will 

direct Plaintiff to pay the filing fee to the Clerk of the Court. This includes any 

recovery Plaintiff may realize from this suit or others, and any assistance 

Plaintiff may receive from family or the government.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue a summons in this action so that 

Plaintiff may serve the complaint on Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 11, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00626-BAS-MDD Document 4 Filed 04/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3