Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01961/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01961-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

18-CV-1961 W (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

ROY MASON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

IAN RABINOWITZ dba GELATO 

VERO CAFE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-1961 W (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IFP [DOC. 2]

On August 23, 2018, Plaintiff Roy Mason (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for 

damages and injunctive relief for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 

among others. Along with the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. 2]. 

I. INTRODUCTION

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 3:18-cv-01961-W-WVG Document 5 Filed 10/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-CV-1961 W (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

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 that based on the 

current record, Plaintiff meets the requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

According to his declaration, Plaintiff does not have sufficient income to support himself. 

He receives $867 a month in public assistance, and $250 in “ADA Settlements.” (Motion

Case 3:18-cv-01961-W-WVG Document 5 Filed 10/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-CV-1961 W (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

¶ 1.) He has no other income. (Id.) Plaintiff’s monthly expenses total $1100. (Id. ¶ 8.) 

He also does not allocate any payments for transportation, and does not have any 

possessions of significant value. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 5.) 

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s IFP motion is GRANTED. However, Plaintiff 

is ORDERED to reimburse the court for all costs advanced in the event Plaintiff prevails 

in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01961-W-WVG Document 5 Filed 10/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3