Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00848/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00848-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

-1- 17cv0848-MMA (JLB) 

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 

JONATHON C. SMITH-COUSINS,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CRAMBINE LUCCIL, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv0848-MMA (JLB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

[Doc. No. 2] 

DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT 

COUNSEL 

[Doc. No. 3]

 

 On April 26, 2017, Plaintiff Jonathon C. Smith-Cousins filed this action, and 

simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion for 

appointment of counsel. See Doc. Nos. 1, 2, 3. 

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 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 IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed in 

forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 

1965). 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). But “the same evenCase 3:17-cv-00848-MMA-JLB Document 4 Filed 05/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
 -2- 17cv0848-MMA (JLB) 

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

handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to 

underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or 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). 

Plaintiff does not provide sufficient information for the Court to determine whether 

he should be granted IFP status. For example, Plaintiff provides contradictory responses 

regarding his monthly income, stating both that he has no monthly income and also that 

he receives $984.00 in monthly disability payments. Similarly, Plaintiff indicates that he 

pays $75.00 per month for motor vehicle insurance, but lists his monthly expenses as 

$0.00. Further, Plaintiff does not provide the value of the car that he lists as an asset, nor 

does he respond to Question 12 by identifying the city and state where he resides. 

Plaintiff must answer every question listed on the IFP application form. 

 Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes it lacks sufficient information to 

determine whether or not it is outside of Plaintiff’s means to pay the costs of 

commencing this action. Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s 

motion to proceed IFP. Doc. No. 2; see Civ. L.R. 3.2. Within fourteen days of the date 

of this Order, Plaintiff shall either: (a) pay the requisite $400 filing fee, or (b) file a 

renewed motion for IFP containing the requisite information regarding his ability to pay 

the costs of commencing this action. If Plaintiff fails to timely submit payment or a 

renewed motion for IFP, this case must be dismissed. Lastly, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling his 

motion. See Doc. No. 3. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: May 2, 2017 _____________________________

 Hon. Michael M. Anello 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00848-MMA-JLB Document 4 Filed 05/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2