Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01517/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01517-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

KIM KOWALSKY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO: 14-CV-1517 W (DHB) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

 v. PAUPERIS [DOC. 3]

PARADISE HOSPITAL, et al.,

Defendants.

On June 23, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Kowalsky commenced this civil rights action

against various Defendants. Along with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

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. 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

- 1 - 14cv1517 W

Case 3:14-cv-01517-W-DHB Document 4 Filed 07/01/14 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

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 thatthis amountwas 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. While Plaintiff

states that she has been unemployed since 1993, she currently receives $1,000 per

month in social security income, and has a checking account with approximately $800

to $1,000. (App., ¶¶ 3–5.) With respect to her outstanding debts, Plaintiff states that

she is financing a 2014 Honda CRV and has outstanding medical bills that exceed

$50,000. (Id., ¶¶ 6, 7.) However, Plaintiff’s total monthly expenses are unclear. For

example, she does not indicate how much she pays toward for her car payment or

medical expenses, nor is there any indication whether she pays rent or a mortgage, or

has any other monthly expenses. In short, Plaintiff has not stated the facts as to her

- 2 - 14cv1517 W

Case 3:14-cv-01517-W-DHB Document 4 Filed 07/01/14 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

poverty with sufficient“particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” McQuade, 647 F.2d

at 940. Absent those facts, it is unclear whether Plaintiff would be able to provide for

herself if denied IFP status.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP [Doc. 3] and DISMISSES the Complaint. Plaintiff

shall have until July 14, 2014 to reinstate this case by paying the filing fee or

submitting an amended IFP motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 1, 2014

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv1517 W

Case 3:14-cv-01517-W-DHB Document 4 Filed 07/01/14 Page 3 of 3