Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00321/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00321-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

19cv321-CAB-MDD

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

ROBERT NEVILLE, MD,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARGUERITE DILL,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv321-CAB-MDD

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[Doc. No. 2]

Plaintiff, a non-prisoner, proceeding in pro per, has filed a complaint for damages 

based upon fraud. [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff has not paid the civil filing fee required to 

commence this action, but rather, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. [Doc. No. 2.]

Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). But the court may authorize a party to proceed 

without paying the fee if that party submits an affidavit demonstrating an inability to pay. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it 

alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” 

Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP 

status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Case 3:19-cv-00321-CAB-MDD Document 4 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv321-CAB-MDD

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

In his motion, Plaintiff claims to have monthly income of $765 and monthly 

expenses of $420. [Doc. No. 2 at 2, 5.] Thus it appears that Plaintiff has over $300 per 

month in income in excess of what is needed to cover his expenses. In addition, Plaintiff 

claims to $1100 in a checking account. [Doc. No. 2 at 2.] However, Plaintiff fails to list 

any expenses for housing or utilities. [Doc. No. 2 at 4.] It is unclear if this is an 

oversight or if Plaintiff truly has no housing expenses.

Based on the lack of “particularity, definiteness and certainty” in the information 

provided, the court is not persuaded that Plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the filing fee and 

“still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. Therefore, Plaintiff’s

motion to proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2] is DENIED without prejudice. 

Plaintiff shall have until March 15, 2019 to either pay the filing fee, or file a new 

motion to proceed IFP that provides with “particularity, definiteness, and certainty” the 

required information. If the filing fee is not paid or a renewed motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis is not filed by March 15, 2019, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss the 

case without prejudice and terminate the action.

In addition, the Court notes that the complaint fails to assert why venue is 

appropriate in the Southern District of California, as is required by 28 U.S.C. §1391. If 

Plaintiff pays the fee or files a new motion to proceed IFP, he shall also file an amended 

complaint that specifically alleges why venue is appropriate in this district.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00321-CAB-MDD Document 4 Filed 02/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2