Lehman v. United States
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for a preliminary injunction. The court denied both motions without prejudice, finding the IFP application incomplete due to missing expense information and the injunction motion lacking factual basis, and ordered the Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or refile within 30 days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied Without Prejudice“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP Motion, ECF No. 2, and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 3, without prejudice to refiling if Plaintiff so chooses.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the IFP application was deficient because it failed to allege monthly expenses, which is necessary to determine if the plaintiff cannot pay court costs and still afford necessities of life. Denying without prejudice allows the plaintiff to cure the defect, which is consistent with the statutory framework of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. |
Motion for Preliminary Injunction Denied Without Prejudice“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP Motion, ECF No. 2, and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 3, without prejudice to refiling if Plaintiff so chooses.” | agree with court The court found the motion 'devoid of information explaining his basis for the relief requested.' While the order cites the Winter factors in a footnote, it does not explicitly apply them to the facts. However, denying a motion that lacks any factual basis or legal argument is procedurally appropriate, and doing so without prejudice allows the plaintiff to amend if they can provide the necessary showing. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the deficiencies in the IFP application (lack of expense data) and the preliminary injunction motion (lack of factual/legal basis). It cites the correct standard for IFP (McQuade) and the correct standard for preliminary injunctions (Winter). The remedy (denial without prejudice with a deadline to cure) is appropriate for a pro se plaintiff who has failed to provide the minimum necessary information to proceed.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENT G. LEHMAN, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02224-JES-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 THE UNITED STATES, PAMELA AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY BONDI, and JESSE HART, 15 INJUNCTION Defendants. 16 [ECF Nos. 2, 3] 17 18 19 20 21 22 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma 23 pauperis (“IFP”) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ECF Nos. 2, 3. 24 Parties instituting a civil action must pay a filing fee of $405 unless they are granted 25 leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). A party need not “be absolutely 26 destitute” to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 27 (1948). “Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some 28 1 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. McQuade, 647 F.3d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)). To 2 that end, “[a]n affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that 3 the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Id. “But, the 4 same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered 5 to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor 6 who is financially able, in whole or in part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorp, 586 7 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 8 Plaintiff’s IFP application fails. While Plaintiff has provided the Court some 9 information about his financial status, he fails to inform the Court of his monthly expenses, 10 if any. Consequently, the Court is unable to assess whether to grant IFP status or not 11 without this information. 12 Similarly, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction1 is devoid of information 13 explaining his basis for the relief requested. As such, the Court must deny Plaintiff’s 14 motion. 15 In sum, the Court is unable to determine from the IFP application whether Plaintiff 16 qualifies for IFP status, and similarly, is unable to determine from Plaintiff’s preliminary 17 injunction motion whether he is entitled to relief. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 18 Plaintiff’s IFP Motion, ECF No. 2, and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 3, 19 without prejudice to refiling if Plaintiff so chooses. 20 Plaintiff is given thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to either (1) pay the 21 entire $405 filing fee; or (2) file a renewed motion to proceed IFP that addresses the 22 concerns identified in this Order. Should Plaintiff elect the latter option, he must submit a 23 24 25 26 1 A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). 27 Generally, a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show: (1) the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the 28 1 |}complete and accurate IFP application. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with the 2 || requirements of this Order, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ; Dated: September 5, 2025 = a 4, 6 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 4 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28