Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02029/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02029-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12111 Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment

---

1

19-CV-2029 JLS (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

LORI ADAMS-BENJAMIN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security

Defendant.

Case No.: 19-CV-2029 JLS (AGS)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

(ECF No. 2)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Lori Adams-Benjamin’s Motion to Proceed in 

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (“Mot.,” ECF No. 2). On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding 

pro se, filed a Complaint alleging employment discrimination and retaliation against 

Defendant Kevin K. McAleenan,1 Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland 

Security. See generally ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”).

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

United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay filing and

/ / /

 

1 Mr. McAleenan has since resigned. Chad Wolf assumed the office of Acting Secretary of the Department 

of Homeland Security on November 13, 2019.

Case 3:19-cv-02029-JLS-AGS Document 3 Filed 01/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19-CV-2029 JLS (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

administration fees totaling $400.2 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A court may, however, in its

discretion, allow a plaintiff to proceed without paying these fees if the plaintiff seeks leave 

to proceed IFP by submitting an affidavit demonstrating the fees impose financial hardship. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Escobeda v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (2015). Although 

the statute does not specify the qualifications for proceeding IFP, the plaintiff’s affidavit 

must allege poverty with some particularity. Escobeda, 787 F.3d at 1234. Granting a 

plaintiff leave to proceed IFP may be proper, for example, when the affidavit demonstrates 

that paying court costs will result in a plaintiff’s inability to afford the “necessities of life.” 

Id. The affidavit, however, need not demonstrate that the plaintiff is destitute. Id. 

In Escobeda, for example, the filing fees constituted forty percent of the plaintiff’s 

monthly income before factoring in her expenses. Id. at 1235. Taking into account the 

plaintiff’s rent and debt payments, the filing fee would have required the entirety of two

months’ worth of her remaining funds, meaning that the plaintiff “would have to forgo 

eating during those sixty days, to save up to pay the filing fee.” Id. Under those 

circumstances, the Ninth Circuit determined that paying the filing fee would constitute a 

significant financial hardship to the plaintiff. Id. Accordingly, the court reversed the 

magistrate judge’s ruling denying the plaintiff IFP status. Id. at 1236.

Here, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not met her burden of demonstrating that 

payment of the filing fee would constitute an undue financial hardship. Plaintiff’s affidavit 

indicates her gross monthly income is $4,014.30, Mot. at 1–2, and her monthly expenses 

total $3,135.34. Id. at 5. The sum of her individually listed expenses, however, is 

$5,480.45. Id. at 4–5. Due to the discrepancy in Plaintiff’s affidavit, the Court is unable 

to determine whether Plaintiff can afford her monthly obligations in addition to the 

requisite filing fee. Potentially, Plaintiff has a monthly surplus of $800, more than twice 

 

2 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $50. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. June 1, 

2016)). The additional $50 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.

Case 3:19-cv-02029-JLS-AGS Document 3 Filed 01/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19-CV-2029 JLS (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

the amount of the filing fee. Plaintiff also indicates that she has $1,000 in cash and $1,000 

in her savings account. Id. at 2. It is unclear why Plaintiff is unable to use these funds to 

pay the administrative filing fee. 

Further, Plaintiff lists expenses beyond those necessary for life. For example, 

Plaintiff budgets $199 per month for cable and $217 per month for public storage. Id. at 

4. Plaintiff’s discretionary spending therefore exceeds the cost of the filing fee. Because 

it appears Plaintiff has sufficient income to afford life’s necessities in addition to the filing 

fee, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion.

CONCLUSION

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2) is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure 

to prepay the filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. §1914(a); and 

3. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date on which this Order is 

electronically docketed to either (1) pay the entire $400 statutory and administrative filing 

fee, or (2) file a new IFP Motion alleging she is unable to pay the requisite fees. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 28, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-02029-JLS-AGS Document 3 Filed 01/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3