Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00198/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00198-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1331as Fed. Question: Assault, Libel, Slander

---

1

3:17-cv-00198-BEN-WVG

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

TIFFANY DEHEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE; TWITTER, INC.; 

UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00198-BEN-WVG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[ECF No. 11]

On March 15, 2017, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) because her IFP application lacked complete information about her 

monthly income. The Court provided Plaintiff a new IFP application and granted her 

leave to either pay the applicable filing fee or file a renewed motion to proceed IFP

within 21 days. Plaintiff subsequently filed an “In Forma Pauperis Decision Appeal” 

(ECF No. 5), and later, a “Motion to Accept Late In Forma Pauperis Renewed 

Application” (ECF No. 11). Her second motion includes a completed IFP application

and explains that she filed her first motion incorrectly. Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s 

IFP application and the law, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP. 

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

United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. 28 

Case 3:17-cv-00198-LAB-WVG Document 14 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:17-cv-00198-BEN-WVG

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

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire 

fee only if he or she is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),

[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, 

prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without 

prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit 

that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person 

is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.

A party “need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis 

statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960). “But ‘the same 

even-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.’” Anderson v. 

California, No. 10-cv-2216 MMA (AJB), 2010 WL 5056019, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 

2010) (internal citation omitted). Thus, a court may deny IFP status to an applicant who 

can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. Greene v. Rodriguez, 

No. 07-cv-1888 W (BLM), 2008 WL 816797 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2008).

Plaintiff is a recent law school graduate and has no dependents. In Plaintiff’s 

application, she admits to receiving approximately $1,900 in income each month during 

the past twelve months. (ECF No. 11 at p. 7 § 1.) In 2016, while in law school, she 

earned approximately $22,000. (Id. at p. 17.) She attests that she has continuously 

worked since the age of 16. (Id. at pp. 13-14 ¶ 2.) Although she states that she does not 

expect to receive any income next month (Id. at p. 7 ¶ 1), she also states that she is selfemployed (id. at p. 8 § 2, p. 11 ¶ 1). Plaintiff has total monthly expenses of 

approximately $2,000. Those expenses include $950 in rent, $140 in utilities, $250 for 

food, $20 for laundry and dry cleaning, $20 for medical and dental expenses, $70 for 

transportation, $20-40 for taxes, $100-250 for business operation expenses, and $500 in 

credit card payments. (Id. at pp. 10-11 § 8.) 

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-00198-LAB-WVG Document 14 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:17-cv-00198-BEN-WVG

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 has not established entitlement to in forma pauperis status. As a graduate 

of both college and law school, Plaintiff is the type of plaintiff capable of “pull[ing] [her] 

own oar.” Anderson, 2010 WL 5056019, at *1. Indeed, Plaintiff admits that she has 

maintained employment since the age of 16. Although she states that her future income 

is unknown and she has credit card debt, Plaintiff earned double the poverty level for an 

individual in 2016 and has a demonstrated ability to earn a living. See 2016 Health & 

Human Servs. Guidelines, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/

2016/01/25/2016-01450/annual-update-of-the-hhs-poverty-guidelines (last visited Apr. 

20, 2017). 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not indigent within the meaning of the 

IFP statute and DENIES her request to proceed IFP. See, e.g., Ross v. San Diego Cnty., 

No. 08-cv-0107 BEN (RBB), 2008 WL 440413, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2008) (denying 

IFP status to unemployed plaintiff with “significant debt” who received disability 

payments of approximately $2,100 a month). Plaintiff’s other pending motions are 

DENIED as moot. (ECF Nos. 5, 13.) The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice 

and may be re-opened if Plaintiff pays the required filing fee within 45 days of the 

signature date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00198-LAB-WVG Document 14 Filed 04/25/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3