Ashford v. Google, Inc
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff Burk N. Ashford's renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil action against Google and Yahoo. The court granted the application, finding that the plaintiff's affidavit demonstrated an inability to pay filing fees while still affording the necessities of life.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Renewed Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Motion [ECF No. 7.]” | 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 necessities of life. The record recited in the order (monthly income of $1,310, rent of $600, and bank balance of $97.39) supports the conclusion that the plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the filing fee without compromising basic needs. Although the court noted the plaintiff did not provide an accurate accounting of all expenses, the specific figures provided were sufficient to meet the threshold for IFP status under the cited authority. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory basis (28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)) and the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent for IFP applications. It applies the 'necessities of life' test to the specific financial facts provided by the plaintiff. The reasoning is direct and the result follows logically from the cited law and the recited record.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BURK N. ASHFORD, Case No.: 25-cv-0327-BJC-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 13 v. TO TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [ECF NO. 7] 14 GOOGLE, et al, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On February 12, 2025, Plaintiff Burk N. 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 filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 22 (“IFP”) which the Court denied on February 19, 2025. [ECF Nos. 3, 4.] 23 Plaintiff has filed a Renewed Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [ECF No. 7.] For the reasons stated below, his motion is 25 GRANTED. 26 Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. See 27 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Civ.L.R. 4.5(a). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the court 28 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, 2 || showing that he or she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “An affidavit in support of an 3 || IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and 4 ||still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 5 ||2015). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, 6 || definiteness and certainty.” /d. (internal quotation marks omitted). The granting or denial 7 ||of leave to proceed IFP in civil cases is within the sound discretion of the district court. 8 || Venerable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted). 9 In his application, Plaintiff states that he receives $1,310 in monthly income from 10 }/‘“Pension, annuity, or life insurance payments.” [ECF No. 7 at 4.] Plaintiff states his 11 ||/monthly expenses include $600 rent, $35 telephone, and that his utilities and medical co- 12 || pays vary. [/d. at 5.] Plaintiff states he has $97.39 in his Chase account. [/d. at 7.] Although 13 ||he does not provide an accurate accounting of his monthly expenses, Plaintiff's income 14 || and bank account indicate that he does not have funds to pay the filing fee and still “afford 15 necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 16 || Plaintiff’?s IFP Motion [ECF No. 7.] 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: April 29, 2025 19 20 6 oq Gan CG Lh fu 21 29 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 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