Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02689/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02689-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

JASON ESSEX,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSTCO, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 13-cv-2689-L(BGS)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS

MOTION [DOC. 2], AND

(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On November 7, 2013, Plaintiff Jason Essex commenced this action. (Doc. 1.) On

November 13, 2013, he filed a motion seeking in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. (Doc. 2.) For

the reasons outlined below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP motion.

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), reversed 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 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

13cv2689

Case 3:13-cv-02689-L-BGS Document 4 Filed 12/04/13 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

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., 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). In addition, 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 Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to

meet 28 U.S.C. § 1915’s requirements for IFP status. It appears that Plaintiff takes home $1300 1

a month after “taxes, 401 K, pension, union dues and 6% to to [sic] 401 K.” (IFP Mot. at ¶ 2

[Doc. 2].) Plaintiff also has $2,030 in two separate checking accounts. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff fails

to indicate in sufficient detail how he spends the $1300 he brings home every month or how he

plans to spend the $2,030 in his checking accounts. Instead, he provides incomplete responses to

the questions regarding his dependents and his debts. (Id. at ¶¶ 8–9.) Consequently, the Court

Plaintiff’s motion is illegible or nearly so in many places. The Court has done its best to 1

accurately read the motion.

13cv2689

2

Case 3:13-cv-02689-L-BGS Document 4 Filed 12/04/13 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

cannot find that requiring Plaintiff to pay the court filing fees would impair his ability to obtain

the necessities of life. Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

(Doc. 2), and DISMISSES the complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Pursuant to this order,

Plaintiff is granted 60 days’ leave to pay the filing fee required to maintain this action pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, or to submit additional documentation regarding his financial status. In

particular, Plaintiff should include detailed information regarding his financial obligations

related to the dependents he lists as well as the debts he lists, including but not limited to his

monthly obligations for each of these debts. Also, Plaintiff should take care to make his future

filing legible. IF PLAINTIFF CHOOSES TO FILE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

REGARDING HIS POVERTY, HE MUST ATTACH A COPY OF THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 4, 2013

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

13cv2689

3

Case 3:13-cv-02689-L-BGS Document 4 Filed 12/04/13 Page 3 of 3