Ashford v. Google, Inc
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Burk Ashford filed a petition for a preliminary injunction and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) without prepaying the filing fee. The court denied the IFP motion without prejudice, finding that the plaintiff's stated income and assets were sufficient to pay the fee, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the fee or file a renewed application by March 18, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied Without Prejudice“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s IFP Motion [ECF No. 3.]” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard from the Ninth Circuit, requiring the plaintiff to show an inability to pay fees while still affording the necessities of life. The court compared the plaintiff's monthly income ($1,310) and bank balance ($426.68) against his monthly expenses ($885). The plaintiff has a monthly surplus of $425 and a bank balance that exceeds the standard federal filing fee (typically $405). Therefore, the conclusion that he has funds to pay the fee is supported by the numbers recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory requirements for IFP status and applies the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Escobedo) to the specific financial figures provided by the plaintiff. The math supports the conclusion that the plaintiff can pay the fee. The denial without prejudice is a standard procedural remedy that allows the plaintiff to correct any deficiencies or pay the fee.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BURK ASHFORD Case No.: 25-cv-0327-BJC-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 14 GOOGLE INC., et al, [ECF No. 3] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On February 12, 2025, Plaintiff Burk Ashford, filed a Petition for Preliminary 19 Injunction alleging Defendants Google and Yahoo have locked him out of his personal 20 email accounts, and he seeks “unfettered access to his email accounts from wherever he 21 may be.” [ECF No. 1.] Plaintiff did not prepay the filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 22 1914(a) at the time of filing; instead, he filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 23 (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). For the reasons stated herein, his motion is 24 DENIED. 25 Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. See 26 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the court 27 may authorize the commencement, prosecution, or defense of any suit without payment 28 of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, 1 || showing that he or she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “An affidavit in support of an 2 || IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and 3 || still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 4 ||2015). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, 5 || definiteness and certainty.” /d. (internal quotation marks omitted). The granting or denial 6 leave to proceed IFP in civil cases is within the sound discretion of the district court. 7 || Venerable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted). 8 In his application, Plaintiff states that he has $1,310 in monthly income from Social 9 || Security, he has $426.68 in a bank account, and his monthly expenses are $885. Based on 10 || Plaintiff's income, expenses, and bank account, it appears that he has funds to pay the 11 || filing fee and still “afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 || Plaintiff’s IFP Motion [ECF No. 3.] Plaintiff shall have until March 18, 2025, to pay the 14 || entire filing fee or file a renewed application to proceed IFP. Failure to pay the filing fee 15 |! or file a renewed application to proceed IFP will result in this case being closed without 16 || further order from the Court. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: February 19, 2025 20 1 6 pap C24, a fa 22 23 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28