Jones v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DEONTE JONES, Case No.: 25-cv-00946-WQH-SBC Plaintiff, 10 ORDER v. 11 12 EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 HAYES, Judge: 17 On April 21, 2025, Plaintiff Deonte Jones (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated 18 this action by filing a Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) The same day, Plaintiff filed an Application 19 to Proceed to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (the 20 “Application”) (ECF No. 2) and a Motion for Leave to Electronically File Documents (ECF 21 No. 3). 22 All parties instituting a civil action in a district court of the United States, other than 23 a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 24 S.D. Cal. CivLR 4.5. An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay only if the 25 party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 26 See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “To proceed in forma pauperis 27 is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). “An affidavit 28 in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the 1 |}court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 2 || 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some 3 || particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” /d. (quoting United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 4 || 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)). 5 Plaintiff has failed to complete all required free-response fields regarding his 6 ||income, assets, expenses, dependents, and debts. Aside from stating that he receives an 7 ||average of $290.00 per month in public assistance, Plaintiff left the remaining sections of 8 || his Application either blank or marked “N/A.” (ECF No. 2 at 1-5.) Due to Plaintiffs failure 9 ||to provide the Court with sufficient information concerning his finances, the Court is 10 |/unable to determine that Plaintiff is entitled to proceed IFP. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 11 || 1234; Contreras v. Vazquez, No. 08cv1362 BEN (WMC), 2008 WL 4925024, at *1 (S.D. 12 Nov. 14, 2008) (denying a motion to proceed IFP due to the plaintiff's failure to 13 ||“‘specify his expenses”); Duell Fam. Tr. v. Ford, No. 24-CV-316 JLS (VET), 2024 WL 14 816615, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2024) (same).! 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application (ECF No. 2) is denied without 16 || prejudice. No later than thirty (30) days from the date this Order is entered, Plaintiff may 17 ||refile an IFP motion that addresses the deficiencies identified in this Order. If no motion is 18 || filed, the Court will dismiss the Complaint and direct the Clerk of the Court to close the 19 || case. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the long-form 20 || “Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs” (AO 239).? Litton 2. Man 22 || Dated: May 14, 2025 Hon. William Q. Hayes 3 United States District Court 24 25 a 27 The Court also notes that Plaintiff has failed to sign the Application. (See ECF No. 2 at 1.) 28 The Motion for Leave to Electronically File Documents (ECF No. 3) remains pending,