Areys v. Mayorkas
- Proceeding
- writ
- Outcome
- other — 3 ||““But, the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not 4 squandered to underwrite, at public expense, eithe
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff Abshir Hasan Areys' application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil action against federal immigration officials. The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding the application deficient because it failed to specify the amounts of financial aid received and the value of listed assets, and ordered the Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file a complete application within 14 days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied Without Prejudice“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's IFP Motion without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the requirement that IFP applicants must allege poverty with particularity. The order identifies specific deficiencies (missing dollar amounts for grants and missing value for a vehicle) that prevent the court from assessing financial ability. Denying without prejudice and providing a specific cure period is the standard procedural response to a deficient IFP application under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for the filing fee and the IFP exception. It applies the correct standard from Ninth Circuit precedent (Escobedo) requiring particularity in the poverty allegation. The court’s reasoning for denial is specific to the record (missing values for assets and income sources), which is the appropriate basis for denying an IFP application without prejudice. The order provides a clear path for relief (cure or pay).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABSHIR HASAN AREYS, Case No.: 3:24-cv-02104-JES-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, UR JADDOU, and CHRISTINE LUJAN, 15 [ECF No. 2] Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Abshir Hasan Areys’ (“Plaintiff”) Application 21 to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Motion”). ECF No. 2. 22 Plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus on November 8, 2024. ECF No. 1. 23 Parties instituting a civil action must pay a filing fee of $405 unless they are granted 24 leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). A party need 25 not “be absolutely destitute” to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 26 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). “Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with 27 some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.’” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 28 1 || 1981)). To that end, “[a]n affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it 2 || alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Jd. 3 ||““But, the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not 4 squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances 5 ||of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. 6 || Ellerthorp, 586 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 7 Plaintiff's IFP application fails. While Plaintiff reports his average monthly 8 ||expenses and dependence on Cal and Pell grants, he fails to report exactly how much he 9 ||receives from those grants. Additionally, Plaintiff lists a Toyota 2005 Camry as an asset, 10 || but fails to report the value of the vehicle. It is not enough for Plaintiff to state that he is an 11 |}unemployed undergraduate student and “depend[ent] on Cal grants and Pell grant [sic].” 12 must list all sources of financial aid, as well as the amount and frequency in which he 13 receives it, and he must report the value of all assets he owns. The Court is unable to assess 14 || whether to grant IFP status or not without this information. 15 In sum, the Court is unable to determine from the IFP application whether Plaintiff 16 || qualifies for IFP status. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's IFP Motion without 17 || prejudice. Plaintiff is given fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to either (1) 18 || pay the entire $405 filing fee; or (2) filed a renewed motion to proceed IFP that addresses 19 || the concerns identified in this Order. Should Plaintiff elect the latter option, he must submit 20 complete and accurate IFP application. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with the 21 ||requirements of this Order, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 5 Dated: November 21, 2024 = a SY. 4, 26 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 7 United States District Judge 28