Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01942/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01942-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM A. HAMILTON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES 

BOARD, a California Public Agency; 

TAJINDER GILL, BARRY HO, in their 

official capacity as Engineers of the California 

Air Resources Board; and KIRK OLIVER, in 

his official capacity as Esquire, Office of Legal 

Affairs, of the California Air Resources Board,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01942-AWI-SKO

ORDER DENYING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND REDUCING 

FILING FEE

(Doc. 2)

I. INTRODUCTION

On December 30, 2015, Plaintiff William A. Hamilton (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint 

against Defendants California Air Resources Board, a California Public Agency; Tajinder Gill and 

Barry Ho, in their official capacity as Engineers of the California Air Resources Board; and Kirk 

Oliver, in his official capacity as Esquire, Office of Legal Affairs, of the California Air Resources 

Board (“Defendants”) (Doc. 1) and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), seeking 

to be excused from having to pay the required filing fee (Doc. 2). 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a United States District Court 

must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure 

Case 1:15-cv-01942-AWI-SKO Document 6 Filed 03/02/16 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

2

to prepay the fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).

This Court has broad discretion to grant or deny Plaintiff’s motion. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 

920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). “[P]ermission to proceed in forma pauperis is itself a matter of 

privilege and not right; denial of in forma pauperis status does not violate the applicant’s right to 

due process.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984). “The trial court must be 

careful to avoid construing the statute so narrowly that a litigant is presented with a Hobson’s 

choice between eschewing a potentially meritorious claim or foregoing life’s plain necessities. 

[Citations]. 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.” Temple v. 

Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984).

To prevail on a motion to proceed IFP, a plaintiff need not demonstrate that he is 

completely destitute but must show that, because of his poverty, he cannot pay the filing fee and 

still provide his dependents with the necessities of life. See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & 

Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). A “‘showing of something more than mere hardship must be 

made.’” Nastrom v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 2011 WL 7031499, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 

2011) (quoting Martin v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 221 F. Supp. 757, 759 (W.D. La. 1963). 

B. Plaintiff’s IFP Application

The information set forth in Plaintiff’s IFP application does not demonstrate his inability to 

pay any amount for the Court’s filing fee. The application indicates that Plaintiff’s gross monthly 

wages are $3400 per month and his take-home wages are $ 3,000 per month, he has monthly 

expenses of $3090, and has one dependent living with him. (Doc. 2.) The Court finds that his

income is sufficient to allow Plaintiff to pay a reduced filing fee in this case without causing him 

to forgo the necessities of life. See Crawford v. Kern Cty. Cty. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Trustees, 2010 

WL 1980246, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2010); Brown v. Yellow Freight Trucking, 2013 WL 

85431, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) (citing Johnson v. Cargill, Inc., 2008 WL 501341, at *1 

(W.D. Tenn. Feb. 21, 2008) (denying motion to proceed IFP where plaintiff’s affidavit revealed 

Case 1:15-cv-01942-AWI-SKO Document 6 Filed 03/02/16 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

3

that her household income exceeded reasonable monthly expenses)). 

Based on the details of Plaintiff’s income, assets, and expenses included in his application 

to proceed IFP, the Court will not deny Plaintiff’s IFP application outright. Rather, the Court will 

reduce the filing fee by half to $175, an amount the Court believes Plaintiff can afford based on 

his application. See Poslof v. Walton, 2012 WL 691767, *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012) report and 

recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 968028 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2012). Requiring Plaintiff to pay 

such a reduced filing fee is within the Court’s discretion. See Johnson v. Next Day Blinds Corp., 

2013 WL 656782, *2 n.1 (D. Md. Feb. 21, 2013); Poslof, 2012 WL 697167 at *3; Dukes-Smith v. 

Loyola Med. Ctr., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98934, *1 (N.D. Ill. July 9, 2012). 

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDER that: 

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED in part; and

2. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay a reduced filing fee of $175. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01942-AWI-SKO Document 6 Filed 03/02/16 Page 3 of 3