Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02749/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02749-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

18cv2749-CAB-AGS

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 B. Turner, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bank of America, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv2749-CAB-AGS

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS [Doc. No. 3]

On December 6, 2018, Plaintiff, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint 

for alleged civil rights violations against Bank of America, San Diego Trolley, County of 

San Diego, Seven Eleven, and the El Cajon Police Department. [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff 

also filed something called a “Fee Waiver,” which the Court assumes is a request to proceed 

in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. [Doc. No. 3.] For the following 

reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

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, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the court may 

authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit without payment of fees 

if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing 

that he or she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “An affidavit in support of an IFP 

application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still 

Case 3:18-cv-02749-CAB-AGS Document 4 Filed 12/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv2749-CAB-AGS

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

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). The granting or denial of leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis in civil cases is within the sound discretion of the district court. 

Venerable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted). 

Here, Plaintiff has merely filed one handwritten page where he claims he “has no 

money.” [Doc. No. 3.] However, he does not provide any particularity whatsoever as to 

his alleged poverty. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. No. 3] for IFP is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff shall have until January 11, 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.1 If the filing fee is not paid or renewed motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis is not filed by January 11, 2019, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss the case 

without prejudice and terminate the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2018

 

1 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with this Court’s approved form “Motion 

and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.”

Case 3:18-cv-02749-CAB-AGS Document 4 Filed 12/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2