Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01688/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01688-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities 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

STEVEN PARKER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO: 15-CV-1688 W (BGS)

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[DOC. 2]; AND 

(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT

[DOC. 1]

 v.

HOMETOWN BUFFET, INC., et al., 

Defendants.

On July 30, 2015, Plaintiff Steven Parker (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action

against Defendants Hometown Buffet, Inc., Erwin Garcia, and “Does I–X.” (See Compl.

[Doc. 1].) The Complaint alleges that Defendants, in violation of federal and state law,

discriminated against Plaintiff during Plaintiff’s April 2015 visit to the Hometown Buffet

Restaurant located at 5881 University Avenue in the City of San Diego. (See id.) Along

1

with the Complaint, Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (See

IFP [Doc. 2].) For the reasons outlined below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP motion.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges three statutory claims and three tort-based claims 1

consisting of the following: (1) violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

U.S.C. § 12181; (2) violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act; (3) violation of the

California Disabled Person’s Act; (4) negligent supervision;(5)intentionalinflictionof emotional

distress; and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Compl. 4:23–9:17.) 

- 1 - 15cv1688w

Case 3:15-cv-01688-W-BGS Document 3 Filed 08/03/15 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

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

Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 506

U.S. 194 (1993) (“[28 U.S.C. §] 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 IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331,

339–40 (1948); see also Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[T]he

filing fee, while discretionary, should not take the prisoner’s last dollar.”). Rather, to

satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), an affidavit need only state that one

cannot “because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be able to

provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339

(internal quotation marks omitted). At the same time, however, the court must “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., Olivares, 59 F.3d

at 112 (district court did not abuse discretion in requiring partial fee payment from

prisoner who consistently spent $35 a month on “comforts” such as candy and name

brand toiletries from the prison commissary); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F. Supp. 129, 130 (E.D.

Pa. 1982) (IFP application denied because “plaintiff possessed savings of $450 and the

magistrate correctly determined that this amount was more than sufficient to allow the

plaintiff to pay the filing fee in this action”).

Having read and considered the papers submitted, the Court finds Plaintiff has

failed to meet the requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff states

that he does not receive a salary or any wages, as he has been unemployed for more than

ten years. (IFP ¶ 2.) However, Plaintiff currently receives $889.00 every month in the

form of Supplemental Security Income. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff also appears to own a 2011

- 2 - 15cv1688w

Case 3:15-cv-01688-W-BGS Document 3 Filed 08/03/15 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

Ford Mustang on which there is no outstanding amount owed. (Id. ¶ 6.) With respect

to other assets, Plaintiff lists a Chase Bank checking account with a current balance of

$3.00. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff does not have any dependents or any other debts or financial

obligations. (Id. ¶¶ 7–8.) 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Plaintiff’s declaration is completely bare with

respect to information about Plaintiff’s monthly expenses. That is, it is entirely unclear

how Plaintiff allocates his monthly income and whether or not his monthly household

income results in a net-positive source of funds after he accounts for his regular expenses. 

The Court recognizes that the standardized IFP form Plaintiff has submitted does not

specifically require information relating to regular monthly expenses. Nevertheless, in

the absence of such information, the Court cannot conclude that paying the court filing

fees would impair Plaintiff’s ability to obtain the necessities of life, and thereby entitle

him to proceed IFP. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339. 

For these reasons, the Court cannot determine at this time that Plaintiff has

insufficient resources to “pull his own oar” by either paying or giving security for the

requisite $400.00 filing fee in this case. See Temple, 586 F. Supp. at 850. Accordingly,

theCourtDENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP [Doc. 2]WITHOUT PREJUDICE

and DISMISSES the Complaint. Plaintiff shall have until August 24, 2015 to reinstate

this case by paying the filing fee or submitting an amended IFP motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: August 3, 2015

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

- 3 - 15cv1688w

Case 3:15-cv-01688-W-BGS Document 3 Filed 08/03/15 Page 3 of 3