Walker v. United States Congress
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Steven Walker filed a complaint against the United States Congress and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The court denied the IFP motion without prejudice, finding that Plaintiff's stated income and expenses did not demonstrate an inability to pay the filing fee while affording the necessities of life, and ordered Plaintiff to pay the fee or file an amended motion by September 19, 2025, or face dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Denied“Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard from *Escobedo v. Applebees* and *Venable v. Meyers*, requiring a showing of inability to pay costs while affording necessities of life. The record recited in the order shows a gross monthly income of $5,970.00 and total monthly expenses of $3,632.00, resulting in a surplus of $2,338.00. The filing fee is $405.00. Mathematically, the plaintiff retains sufficient funds to pay the fee and still cover his listed expenses. The court also noted the failure to list assets (specifically a vehicle) which further weakens the claim of poverty. The denial is supported by the facts recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the relevant statutory and case law standards for IFP motions in the Ninth Circuit. It applies these standards to the specific financial figures provided by the plaintiff. The conclusion that the plaintiff can pay the fee is logically derived from the stated income and expenses. The order provides clear instructions for curing the deficiency (amended motion or payment), making the reasoning complete and sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN WALKER, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02064-JES-BLM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 UNITED STATES CONGRESS, [ECF No. 2] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On August 8, 2025, Plaintiff Steven Walker (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint alleging 19 violations of his constitutional rights. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to 20 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. For the reasons stated below, the Court 21 DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP motion. 22 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 23 Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee of 24 $405.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). But the Court may authorize a party to 25 proceed without paying the fee if that party submits an affidavit demonstrating an inability 26 to pay. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient 27 where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of 28 1 life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9 Cir. 2015). “[A] plaintiff seeking 2 IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” Id. 3 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Granting or denying leave to proceed IFP 4 in civil cases is within the district court’s sound discretion. Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 5 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974). To that end, “[a]n affidavit in support of an IFP application is 6 sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the 7 necessities of life.” Id. 8 In his motion, Plaintiff claims to have a gross monthly income of $5,970.00, $182.00 9 in cash, and total monthly expenses of $3,632.00. ECF No. 2, Questions 1, 4 and 8. Plaintiff 10 fails to respond to the question that asks Plaintiff to list assets owned. ECF No. 2, Question 11 5. Plaintiff lists monthly expenses for a vehicle payment and vehicle insurance, but does 12 not list any vehicle as an asset or the value of any vehicle. ECF No. 2, Questions 2, 8. 13 Given Plaintiff’s monthly income and declared amount in cash, it appears Plaintiff 14 can pay the $405.00 filing fee in this case. Nevertheless, if Plaintiff believes that the Court 15 should consider his additional financial obligations that he did not state in his affidavit, he 16 may submit an amended application listing such obligations. 17 II. CONCLUSION 18 Based on Plaintiff’s income and expenses provided, the Court is not persuaded that 19 Plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the filing fee and “still afford the necessities of life.” 20 Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED 21 without prejudice. 22 Plaintiff shall have until September 19, 2025, to either pay the filing fee or file a 23 new motion to proceed IFP that provides with “particularity, definiteness, and certainty” 24 the required information. In particular, Plaintiff shall respond truthfully to Questions 5 and 25 8. If Plaintiff does not pay the filing fee or file a renewed motion to proceed IFP by 26 September 19, 2025, the Clerk of Court shall dismiss the case without prejudice and 27 terminate the action. 28 / / / I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: August 25, 2025 3 4 we Su 4 4 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28