Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00679/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00679-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WEIGEL, JOSH BARON, and

TRACY BARON,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 12-CV-0679-H (MDD)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

vs.

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE

CORP.; COLONIAL NATIONAL

MORTGAGE; TITANIUM

SOLUTIONS, INC.; MARIA

ATKINSON; SKIDMARK

ENTERPRISE, INC.; and DOES 1-20,

inclusive,

Defendants.

On March 20, 2012, Plaintiffs David Weigel, Josh Baron, and Tracy Baron filed a

complaint asserting a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Regulations, 15 U.S.C.

§§ 1692, et seq., and state law claims against Defendants. (Doc. No. 1.) Also on March 20,

2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. Nos. 2-4.) The Court

denies Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis and directs Plaintiffs to pay the court

filing fee. 

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United

States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee

- 1 - 12cv0679

Case 3:12-cv-00679-H-MDD Document 7 Filed 03/23/12 Page 1 of 2
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

only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). “To proceed in

forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). 

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 (1948). He must, however, demonstrate his poverty

with “some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d

938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam). District courts have broad discretion to deny a motion

to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.

1990).

After reviewing Plaintiffs’ affidavits, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not made

an adequate showing that they are unable to pay the filing fee. Ms. Tracy Baron states in her

affidavit that she receives $2,000 per month in wages, that she has $150 in her checking

account, that she owns stock worth $150, and that she has a separate banking account with a

balance of $3,165.45. (Doc. No. 4.) Mr. David Weigel states in his affidavit that he currently

expects to receive $3,200 per month, that he has $100 in his checking account, and that he

owns his automobile outright. (Doc. No. 2.) Mr. Josh Baron states in his affidavit that he

receives $1,500 per month in unemployment benefits, that he has $150 in his checking

account, and that he owns his automobile outright. (Doc. No. 3.) The affidavits submitted by

Plaintiffs do not demonstrate that they lack the financial resources or assets to pay the costs

of commencing this action. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not satisfied

the indigency requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the Court denies

Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice and directs Plaintiffs to pay

the appropriate $350 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 23, 2012

______________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

- 2 - 12cv0679

Case 3:12-cv-00679-H-MDD Document 7 Filed 03/23/12 Page 2 of 2