Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01458/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01458-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12188 Americans With Disabilities Act - Civil Enforcement Actions

---

1

18-CV-1458 W (JMA) 

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

ROY MASON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERRANOS TACOS SAN DIEGO INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-1458 W (JMA) 

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

[DOC. 2]; AND 

(2) REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

REIMBURSE THE FILING FEE 

AND ALL SERVICE COSTS FROM 

ANY RECOVERY OBTAINED IN 

THIS CASE

Plaintiff Roy Mason filed this action on June 26, 2018 alleging violation of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, inter alia. (Compl. [Doc. 1].) He thereafter filed the 

pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Pl.’s 

Mot. [Doc. 2].) 

The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted. For the reasons outlined 

below, the Court GRANTS the IFP motion. [Doc. 2.]

Case 3:18-cv-01458-W-LL Document 4 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18-CV-1458 W (JMA) 

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. LEGAL STANDARD

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

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

other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“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. See 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 

(internal quotations omitted). 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). 

“[T]he greater power to waive all fees includes the lesser power to set partial fees.” 

Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995).

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). District courts tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant can pay the 

filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 

396860 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (initially permitting Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis 

but later requiring him to pay $120 filing fee out of $900 settlement proceeds); Ali v. 

Cuyler, 547 F. Supp. 129, 130 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (“[P]laintiff 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 . . . .”). Permission to proceed IFP is 

Case 3:18-cv-01458-W-LL Document 4 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18-CV-1458 W (JMA) 

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

“a matter of privilege and not right[,]” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 

1984), and “ ‘in forma pauperis status may be acquired and lost during the course of 

litigation.’ ” Baize v. Lloyd, 2014 WL 6090324, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2014) 

(quoting Wilson v. Dir. of Div. of Adult Insts., 2009 WL 311150, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 

2009)).

II. DISCUSSION

Mason has satisfied his burden of demonstrating that he is entitled to IFP status. 

According to his declaration, his only income is $867 monthly in disability. (Pl.’s Mot.

[Doc. 2] 2.) He owns no assets of value. (Id. [Doc. 2] 3.) His monthly expenses are

$750 for rent or mortgage, $30 for utilities, $150 for food, $10 for clothing, and $40 for 

laundry and dry cleaning. (Id. [Doc. 2] 4.) He has no money in any financial institution. 

(Id. [Doc. 2] 2.)

The filing fee for an ordinary civil action is $400. Based on the foregoing, Mason

has demonstrated that he lacks the means to pay the filing fee without sacrificing the 

necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339–40. Accordingly, Mason demonstrates

entitlement to IFP status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:18-cv-01458-W-LL Document 4 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18-CV-1458 W (JMA) 

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

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the reasons addressed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 

IFP. [Doc. 2.]

In light of the Court’s ruling on the IFP motion, the Court orders as follows: 

1. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the Complaint filed 

on June 26, 2018 and an accompanying summons upon Defendant as 

directed by Plaintiff on U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service shall be 

advanced by the United States.

2. Defendant shall respond to the Complaint within the time provided by 

the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3. Plaintiff shall reimburse the filing fee and all costs of service from any 

recovery in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01458-W-LL Document 4 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4