Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00640/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00640-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1346rc Recovery of IRS Tax

---

– 1 – 16cv640 

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 

KENDRICK BANGS KELLOGG, 

 Plaintiff, 

Case No. 16-cv-640-BAS(JLB) 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; AND 

(2) DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL 

[ECF Nos. 2, 3] 

 v. 

CHRISTINE V. OLSEN, et al., 

 Defendants. 

On March 15, 2016, Plaintiff Kendrick Bangs Kellogg, proceeding pro se, 

commenced this action against Christine V. Olsen, John Koskinen in his capacity as 

Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, and the Tax Division of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. On the same day, Plaintiff also filed a motion for appointment 

of counsel and a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). For the 

reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP and 

DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE his motion for appointment of counsel. 

Case 3:16-cv-00640-BAS-JLB Document 4 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 4
 – 2 – 16cv640 

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 

I. MOTION FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS

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) (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). In addition, the facts as 

to the affiant’s poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness, and 

Case 3:16-cv-00640-BAS-JLB Document 4 Filed 03/16/16 Page 2 of 4
 – 3 – 16cv640 

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 

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

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

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

unemployed 82-year-old on a fixed retirement income of $1,100 per month. (IFP 

Mot. ¶¶ 1-3, 11.) No other sources of income or assets are listed for him and his 

spouse. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 4-6.) Though Plaintiff summarizes his monthly expenses as 

“none,” the sum of expenses identified amounts to $1,830 between Plaintiff and his 

spouse. (Id. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s expenses and debt are clearly greater than his current 

sources of income. Consequently, the Court finds that requiring Plaintiff to pay the 

court filing fees would impair his ability to obtain the necessities of life. 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. 

II. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil case. 

See Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991); Ivey v. Bd. 

of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). “However, a 

court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint counsel for indigent civil 

litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 

(9th Cir. 2004) (citing Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 

2004)). “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist, a court must 

consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner 

to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” 

Case 3:16-cv-00640-BAS-JLB Document 4 Filed 03/16/16 Page 3 of 4
 – 4 – 16cv640 

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 

Id. (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). “Neither of these 

considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Id. (citing 

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

 The basis of Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is that he has 

not been able to obtain counsel because of his “poverty” despite his diligence. 

(Counsel Mot. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff identifies at least two attorneys he has asked to take his 

case, but both rejected him. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) He adds that counsel is needed because of 

issues with his memory and the need for assistance in understanding and prosecuting 

this action. (Id. ¶ 7.) However, the circumstances described fail to demonstrate 

“exceptional circumstances” warranting the appointment of counsel. See Palmer, 

560 F.3d at 965. Therefore, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3.) 

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER 

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 

IFP and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of 

counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 16, 2016 

Case 3:16-cv-00640-BAS-JLB Document 4 Filed 03/16/16 Page 4 of 4