Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02214/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02214-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charlene La Douer
Plaintiff
U.C.S.F
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLENE LA DOUER,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.C.S.F, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02214-MEJ 

ORDER RE: APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Charlene La Douer filed two Complaints and two Applications to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”).

1

 See Dkt. Nos. 1 (First Compl.); 8 (Second Compl.); 5 (First Appl.); 7 

(Second Appl.). Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s IFP Applications, the Court requires 

additional information before determining whether she may proceed in forma pauperis. 

BACKGROUND

A. The Complaints

Plaintiffs’ Complaints are hand-written and largely illegible and incomprehensible. From 

what the Court can ascertain, Plaintiff’s First Complaint, filed on May 18, 2015, names as

Defendants “UCSF,” “Juvenile Court,” Mayor Ed Lee, and “Tesla.” First Compl. at 1. Plaintiff 

appears to allege that UCSF Well Baby Nursery and Hospital engaged in “malpracticing” when a 

nurse misread something about Plaintiff’s newborn child’s condition on August 2, 1999. Id. at 2. 

As to Mayor Lee, Plaintiff appears to accuse him of “offering jobs to immigrants” and states:

“There jobs to fix up the city, where for drug police to know Jesus, and offer Rehab by 

demonstrating job skills, to inmates of Calif. prisons . . . .” Id. She also mentions the fire 

 

1

Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, but that form is 

reserved for prisoners, which Plaintiff is not, and as such, the Court STRIKES that document. 

See Dkt. No. 6. Consequently, this Order only considers Plaintiff’s two IFP Applications and her 

Complaints. 

Case 3:15-cv-02214-JST Document 16 Filed 07/15/15 Page 1 of 6
2

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

Northern District of California

department and “for every building to show concern for safety of 1806 Earthquake . . . .” Id. The

Complaint never mentions Tesla, the Juvenile Court, or why Plaintiff names them as Defendants. 

Plaintiff’s Second Complaint, filed on May 27, 2015, names only “Caminar,” although it 

discusses UCSF and the nurse, explaining that on July 28, 1999, the nurse misread her son’s “tox 

screen[.]” Second Compl. at 2. She also discusses “CPS,” which appears to be Child Protective 

Services, stating it “conspired prior to this for adoption without advising me or my consent” and 

writing that “this has been an ongoing battle to keep me where they can control me[.]” Id. 

Plaintiff alleges that Caminar “continues to have illegally obtained evidence, and sexual contents

in their [illegible] . . . to use to exploit, degrade, attack at anytime . . . .” Id. at 3. Plaintiff 

demands “restorative justice . . . . including my parental rights,” as well as “an immediate 

restraining order” and “a search warrant from their premises in San Mateo.” Id. 

B. In Forma Pauperis Application

Like her Complaints, Plaintiff’s IFP Applications are handwritten and often difficult to 

read. There are also inconsistencies between the Applications. 

In Plaintiff’s First Application, filed May 18, 2015, she indicates that she is unemployed

and receives $869 per month in SSI, which the Court takes to be Social Security Income. First 

Appl. at 1-2. In the same section where she indicates her SSI, Plaintiff also writes “450.Rent[,] 

110.storage[,] 50/wk [illegible,] 25/mother – owe mother 260 – Dental Credit ([illegible] 

credit)[.]” Id. at 2. It is unclear whether those amounts are income or whether they are monthly 

expenses, debts, or something else entirely. See id. Elsewhere she indicates that her monthly 

expenses are $450 for rent, but does not list her monthly expenses for food, clothing, or utilities, 

writing only that they are “included[,]” although it is unclear what she means by “included” or 

where those expenses are included. Id. at 3. The Application also notes that she pays an 

additional $260 per month on a charge account entitled “care credit.” Id. Plaintiff also provides

conflicting information about whether she has another lawsuit raising the claims present in this 

action. Id. at 4. Specifically, Plaintiff marks that she does not have another lawsuit involving the 

same claims, but in the following section provides what appears to be the name of an action 

involving San Mateo County. Id.

Case 3:15-cv-02214-JST Document 16 Filed 07/15/15 Page 2 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s Second Application, filed on May 27, 2015, indicates a monthly income of $900

a month but does not state the precise source. Second Appl. at 2. Additionally, in the section 

asking Plaintiff to list her monthly expenses, she again writes $450 for rent, but like her First 

Application, she does not list her monthly expenses for food, clothing, or utilities, writing only 

that they are “included[,]” but failing to state where they are included. Id. at 3. Plaintiff identifies 

a charge account, but her writing is illegible and the Court cannot determine the name and amount 

owed to the listed account. Id. at 3. Plaintiff writes that she is owes a debt to her mother for “care 

credit,” but does not indicate what balance is due. Id. at 3. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court may authorize the commencement of a civil action 

IFP if it is satisfied that the plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the action. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The policy for allowing a plaintiff to proceed IFP is to protect litigants 

from abandoning “what may be a meritorious claim in order to spare himself complete 

destitution.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 340 (1948). However, 

“[c]ourt permission to proceed in forma pauperis is itself a matter of privilege and not right; denial 

of in forma pauperis status does not violate the applicant’s right to due process.” Franklin v. 

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984).

To determine IFP eligibility, an applicant must “submit[] an affidavit that includes a 

statement of all assets” showing that the applicant “is unable to pay such fees or give security 

therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). To satisfy this requirement, “an affidavit [of poverty] is 

sufficient which states that one cannot because of his [or her] poverty pay or give security for 

costs . . . and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins, 

335 U.S. at 339. The Ninth Circuit has held that “a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege 

poverty ‘with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” Escobedo v. Applebees, __ F.3d __, 

2015 WL 3499902, at *7 (9th Cir. June 4, 2015) (quoting United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 

938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)). The Court has discretion to make a factual inquiry into an IFP 

applicant’s financial status and to deny the application where the applicant is unable or unwilling 

to verify his or her poverty. McQuade, 647 F.2d at 940. 

Case 3:15-cv-02214-JST Document 16 Filed 07/15/15 Page 3 of 6
4

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

Northern District of California

DISCUSSSION

Although Plaintiff claims that she is impoverished and cannot afford payment of the 

requisite filing fees to commence her lawsuit, Plaintiff’s Applications are incomplete and contain

inconsistent information. Courts require more “particularity, definiteness and certainty” in 

analyzing such applications. McQuade, 647 F.2d at 940. 

For example, in the case of Bridgewater v. Bankson, the plaintiff submitted multiple IFP 

applications, which contained inconsistencies and provided incomplete information about her 

financial status. 2010 WL 291786, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2010). The Bridgewater court 

initially denied the plaintiff’s first IFP application, noting inconsistencies between her reported net 

income and expenses. Id. at *9. The court, however, allowed the plaintiff to amend and clarify 

her IFP application, and consequently, plaintiff filed two more amended IFP applications. Id. But 

again, the revised applications “fail[ed] to give a consistent or adequate statement of her finances.”

Id. As the court was unable to assess the plaintiff’s financial status based on her applications’ 

incomplete and conflicting representations, the court denied her applications. Id.; see also 

Hopkins v. Tacoma Mun. Court, 393 F. App’x 476, 477 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming denial of IFP 

application for not accounting for different statements regarding employment information); United 

States v. Sidman, 470 F.2d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 1972) (an IFP application “must include, at a 

minimum: Plaintiff’s income in such a manner that the Court can accurately calculate annual 

income . . . and any debts or expenses that reduce monthly and yearly income.”). 

As in Bridgewater, Plaintiff’s Applications are incomplete and reveal inconsistencies. 

Among other things, Plaintiff’s Applications reflect two different monthly income amounts and do 

not specify the precise sources for this monthly income. Additionally, while Plaintiff’s 

Applications consistently state that her rent is $450 per month, it is unclear how much, if anything, 

she pays for food, clothing, or utilities, and the Court is unable to determine what she means by 

“included.” Further, it appears Plaintiff owes a debt to her mother, but it is not clear how much 

she owes or pays per month. Given this incomplete and sometimes inconsistent information, the

Court cannot currently assess whether Plaintiff’s financial status qualifies her to proceed IFP. See 

Bush v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 2007 WL 4365381, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 10, 2007) (“In 

Case 3:15-cv-02214-JST Document 16 Filed 07/15/15 Page 4 of 6
5

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

Northern District of California

forma pauperis status is usually reserved either for indigent prisoners or for persons who subsist 

on small fixed-income payments such as social security, unemployment compensation, or public 

assistance and who would truly be required to forego food, shelter, clothing, or some other 

necessity were they to devote any of their scant resources to paying a judicial filing fee.”). 

Nonetheless, as in Bridgewater, the Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to cure the 

issues identified above.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, if Plaintiff wishes to proceed IFP, the Court ORDERS her to file 

one amended IFP Application providing clear, legible, and complete answers to all the questions 

in the Application. Plaintiff must file her amended application by August 12, 2015. If Plaintiff 

does not file an amended IFP Application by August 12, 2015, her Complaint may be dismissed. 

The Court further VACATES the August 20, 2015 Case Management Conference and all 

related deadlines pending resolution of Plaintiff’s IFP Application.

Additionally, as Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, she may wish to seek assistance from the 

Legal Help Center, a free service of the Volunteer Legal Services Program, by calling 415-782-

8982, or by signing up for an appointment on the15th Floor of the Federal Courthouse in San 

Francisco, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. At the Legal Help Center, you 

will be able to speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help but not 

representation. More information is available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf. Plaintiff 

may also obtain a copy of the Court’s Handbook for Litigants Without a Lawyer, available free of 

charge in the Clerk’s Office, or online at http://cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbk. This handbook 

provides an explanation of the required components of a complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02214-JST Document 16 Filed 07/15/15 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLENE LA DOUER,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.C.S.F,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02214-MEJ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on July 15, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Charlene La Douer

505 Cypress

S.S.F, CA 94128 

Dated: July 15, 2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By: ___________________________ 

Chris Nathan, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable MARIA-ELENA JAMES

Case 3:15-cv-02214-JST Document 16 Filed 07/15/15 Page 6 of 6