Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01213/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01213-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

- 1 - 10cv1213 W NLS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DAVID FLEMING,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO: 10-CV-1213 W NLS 

ORDER DENYING (1) MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS (DOC. 3) AND

(2) MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(DOC. 2)

 v.

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE,

Defendant.

On June 7, 2010, Plaintiff Michael David Fleming commenced this action against

the United States Air Force. Along with the Complaint, Plaintiff also filed a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and a motion for appointment of counsel.

For the reasons outlined below, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff’s IFP motion (Doc. 3), and DENIES AS MOOT the motion to appoint counsel

(Doc. 2).

I. PLAINTIFF’S IFP MOTION.

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

Case 3:10-cv-01213-W-NLS Document 5 Filed 07/07/10 Page 1 of 4
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

- 2 - 10cv1213 W NLS

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, 851 F.Supp. 316, (N.D.Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other grounds, Olivares

v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that district court did not abuse

discretion in requiring partial fee payment from prisoner with $14.61 monthly salary and

$110 per month from family); Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 1995)

(Plaintiff initially permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, later required to pay $120

filing fee out of $900 settlement proceeds); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F.Supp. 129, 130 (E.D.

Pa. 1982) (in forma pauperis application denied: “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.”). Moreover, 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). 

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 because he has

not completed several required portions of the IFP application. For instance, Plaintiff

has indicated that he is self employed, but failed to state both his business, as well as the

Case 3:10-cv-01213-W-NLS Document 5 Filed 07/07/10 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 - 10cv1213 W NLS

amount of his take-home salary or wages. (IFP Mot. [Doc. No. 3], at ¶ 2(a).) Plaintiff

has also failed to state the date of his last employment (Id. at ¶ 2(b)), and has failed to

indicate the amount of money he has received over the past twelve months in the form

of gifts. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Lastly, Plaintiff has stated that he owes debts to certain creditors,

but has failed to indicate the amounts owed. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Based on these deficiencies,

the Court finds that Plaintiff has not stated the facts as to his poverty with sufficient

“particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” McQuade, 647 F.2d at 940. As such, the

Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed IFP. 

II. SUA SPONTE REVIEW OF THE COMPLAINT.

When a complaint is written by a pro se litigant, as here, pleading rules are

relaxed and the complaint is held to a less stringent standard. Karim-Panahi v. Los

Angeles Police Dep’t., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d

1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). It is equally settled, however, that “[a] trial court may act

on its own initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint and dismiss it for failure to

state a claim.” Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361 (9th Cir. 1981); Sparling v. Hoffman

Const. Co., Inc., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988); Barsella v. United States, 135

F.R.D. 64, 66 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (policy requiring courts to liberally construe pro se

complaints “does not mandate that a court sustain every pro se complaint even if it is

incoherent, rambling, and unreadable”).

Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to set

forth “(1) a short and plaint statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction...; [¶]

(2) ... the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and [¶] (3) a demand for

the relief sought....” The Rule also requires that each claim be “simple, concise, and

direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(2). These rules ensure that a complaint gives fair notice

to defendants and states the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v.

Community Redevelopment Agency of City of Los Angeles, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.

1984). Where a complaint contains nothing more than conclusory allegations,

Case 3:10-cv-01213-W-NLS Document 5 Filed 07/07/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 10cv1213 W NLS

unsupported by facts, it fails to comply with Rule 8. Sherman v. Yakahi, 549 F.2d 1287,

1290 (9th Cir. 1977).

Here, although the Complaint is concise – comprised of a single paragraph –

Plaintiff has failed to identify the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, as well as the laws the

Defendant is alleged to have violated. The Complaint simply alleges that Air Force jets

are spraying a mix of barium, aluminum and “other ingredients” as part of a “program

called ‘Stratus-pheric Aerosol Geo-engineering,’ which is now said to be used for ‘global

warming.’” (Compl., p.1.) This allegation does not provide notice to Defendant

regarding the law(s) allegedly violated, the damage(s) Plaintiff allegedly sustained, or

why jurisdiction and venue are appropriate in this Court. 

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP (Doc. 3) and DISMISSES the Complaint with leave

to amend. Plaintiff shall have until August 6, 2010 to reinstate this case by (1) paying

the $350 filing fee or submitting an amended IFP motion, and (2) filing a First Amended

Complaint. Plaintiff is advised that failure to meet either of these requirements may

cause the termination of his case without further leave to amend. Additionally, Plaintiff

is further cautioned that the First Amended Complaint should address the deficiencies

discussed above that exist in the current Complaint. 

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED as moot

(Doc. 2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 7, 2010

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01213-W-NLS Document 5 Filed 07/07/10 Page 4 of 4