Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00569/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00569-0/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 – 18cv0569

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

JAIME REYES,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-00569-BAS-JMA

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

[ECF No. 2]

v.

WEBHURST, LLC d/b/a PITA PIT,

et al.,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for leave proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”)—without prepaying court fees or costs. (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff 

Jaime Reyes commenced this action against Defendants Webhurst, LLC d/b/a Pita 

Pit and Morena Vista, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) and alleges Defendants 

violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, along with other state claims. (ECF No. 

1.) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 

proceed IFP. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a litigant who because of indigency is unable to pay 

the required fees or security to commence a legal action may petition the court to 

Case 3:18-cv-00569-BAS-JMA Document 4 Filed 03/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 18cv0569

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

proceed without making such payment. The determination of indigency falls within 

the district court’s discretion. Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th 

Cir. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (holding that “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 wellsettled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP. 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, 841 F. Supp. 316, 321 (N.D. Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other 

grounds, Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that a district 

court did not abuse its discretion in requiring a partial fee payment from a prisoner 

who had a $14.61 monthly salary and who received $110 per month from family). 

Moreover, “in forma pauperis status may be acquired and lost during the course of 

litigation.” Wilson v. Dir. of Div. of Adult Insts., No. CIV S-06-0791, 2009 WL 

311150, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009) (citing Stehouwer, 841 F. Supp. at 321); see 

also Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 1995) (holding that 

a plaintiff who was initially permitted to proceed in forma pauperis should be 

required to pay his $120 filing fee out of a $900 settlement). Finally, 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).

Case 3:18-cv-00569-BAS-JMA Document 4 Filed 03/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 18cv0569

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

Having read and considered Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff meets the requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Although 

Plaintiff receives $850.00 a month in disability benefits, his expenses are 

approximately $810.00 a month. (ECF No. 2 at 1-2, 4) His expenses are largely due 

to rent ($500.00), food ($200.00), and transportation ($50.00), and do not include 

recreational spending. (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff has no assets, nor does he have any money

in a bank account. (Id. at 2-3.) He is represented by counsel, but it does not appear 

that he is paying (or expects to pay) counsel at this time. (Id. at 5.); see Torres v. 

Colvin, No. CV-13-2300-PHX-LOA, 2013 WL 12304024, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 25, 

2013) (“While Plaintiff is represented by counsel, there is no known authority that 

precludes a plaintiff from obtaining [IFP] status if the plaintiff 

is represented by counsel; provided, of course, the plaintiff qualifies for such status.”)

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that requiring Plaintiff to pay the court 

filing fees would impair his ability to obtain the necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 

U.S. at 339.

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application for leave 

to proceed IFP. (ECF No. 2.) However, if it appears at any time in the future that 

Plaintiff’s financial picture has improved for any reason, the Court will direct 

Plaintiff to pay the filing fee to the Clerk of the Court. This includes any recovery 

Plaintiff may realize from this suit or others and any assistance Plaintiff may receive 

from family or the government.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 29, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00569-BAS-JMA Document 4 Filed 03/29/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3