Marroquin v. Mr. Gordon
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil action against the Department of Motor Vehicles. The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding the affidavit insufficient because it failed to specify bank accounts and listed no monthly expenses, and ordered the plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file a corrected motion by May 28, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied Without Prejudice“Because Plaintiff does not provide sufficient information to determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Court DENIES Plaintiff's IFP motion without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the requirement that an IFP affidavit must allege poverty with particularity. The plaintiff's affidavit contained internal contradictions (claiming no income/assets but also no expenses, which is logically impossible for a living person) and omitted specific information regarding financial institutions. Denying without prejudice allows the plaintiff to cure the defect, which is the standard procedural remedy for an insufficient IFP application. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on binding Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the specificity required for IFP affidavits. The court identified specific deficiencies in the plaintiff's filing (lack of bank account details and logical inconsistency regarding expenses) and provided a clear path to cure the defect. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the statutory requirements.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK ANTHONY MARROQUIN, Case No.: 25-cv-1075-RSH-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 MR. GORDON, Office of the Director, Department of Motor Vehicles, 15 [ECF No. 2] Defendant. 16 17 18 19 On April 28, 2025, plaintiff Frank Anthony Marroquin, proceeding pro se, 20 commenced this action. ECF No. 1. On April 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion 21 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. For the reasons below, the 22 Court denies the motion to proceed IFP without prejudice. 23 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 24 United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. 28 25 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee only 26 if the party is granted leave to proceed in IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). See 27 Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal court may authorize the 28 commencement of an action without the prepayment of fees if the party submits an 1 || affidavit, including a statement of assets, showing inability to pay the required filing fee. 2 ||28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it 3 || alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life[.]” 4 || Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP 5 ||status must allege poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” Jd. 6 || (quoting United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)). 7 In his IFP application, Plaintiff claims he has no source of income, no cash, and no 8 || assets. ECF No. 2 at 1-3. Plaintiff does not, however, specify whether he has money in any 9 ||bank account or other financial institution. /d. at 2. In addition, Plaintiff also claims no 10 ||monthly expenses, instead listing EBT (which is not an expense) in this section. /d. at □□□□ 11 |/It is unclear to the Court how Plaintiff is securing the necessities of life without any 12 || expenses. See Ritchie v. Hill, No. 23-CV-2163 JLS (BLM), 2023 WL 8439564, at *2 (S.D. 13 Dec. 5, 2023); Turner v. City of San Diego, No. 23-CV-29 TWR (NLS), 2023 WL 14 || 163492, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023). Because Plaintiff does not provide sufficient 15 information to determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 16 Court DENIES Plaintiff's IFP motion without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed 17 || with this action, Plaintiff must: (1) pay the filing fee of $405; or (2) file a corrected IFP 18 || motion correcting the above deficiencies by May 28, 2025. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: April 30, 2025 □ 21 Febut [ove 7 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28