Walker v. United States Congress
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion to reconsider the denial of his application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The court denied the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of indigency or legal authority for his arguments, and ordered him to pay the filing fee or file a compliant IFP application by September 19, 2025, or face dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied.“Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the Order Denying his Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof for IFP status. A single paystub from two months prior is generally insufficient to establish a current inability to pay court costs while maintaining necessities of life, as it does not account for other income or expenses. Furthermore, the plaintiff's argument regarding vehicle ownership lacked citation to specific California statutes, and the First Amendment argument was unsupported by binding authority. The denial is consistent with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. |
Plaintiff is ordered to pay the filing fee or file a new IFP application by September 19, 2025, or the case will be dismissed without prejudice.“Plaintiff shall have until September 19, 2025, to either pay the filing fee or file a new IFP application, signed under penalty of perjury. If Plaintiff does not pay the filing fee or file a renewed motion to proceed IFP or files an incomplete motion to proceed IFP by September 19, 2025, the Clerk of Court shall dismiss the case without prejudice and terminate the action.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural consequence for failing to comply with court orders regarding filing fees or IFP status. The deadline and the threat of dismissal without prejudice are appropriate measures to manage the docket and ensure compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the standard for IFP applications by requiring specific, current, and detailed financial information. It properly rejects the plaintiff's arguments for lack of legal support and insufficient evidence. The court's reliance on *Escobedo* is appropriate for the 9th Circuit context. The order clearly states the consequences of non-compliance.
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. RECONSIDER ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 14 UNITED STATES CONGRESS, PAUPERIS 15 Defendant. 16 [ECF No. 4] 17 18 On August 25, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in 19 forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 3. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee 20 or file a new motion to proceed IFP that provides with “particularity, definiteness, and 21 certainty,” including answers to Questions 5 and 8. Id. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that 22 if he did not pay the filing fee or file a renewed motion to proceed IFP by September 19, 23 2025, the case would be dismissed without prejudice. Id. 24 Instead of paying the filing fee or filing a renewed motion to proceed IFP under 25 penalty of perjury, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the Order Denying Motion to 26 Proceed IFP. ECF No. 4. In his motion, Plaintiff discusses his net pay and submits one 27 month’s paystub from July 2025, to argue that his net pay is $3,912.43. ECF No. 4-1. 28 1 || However, this one paystub, from two months ago is insufficient for the Court to determine 2 || whether Plaintiff “... cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” 3 || Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9" Cir. 2015). 4 Further, Plaintiff states that he is not the legal owner of a vehicle that he purchased 5 July 15, 2025. ECF No. 4-2. The lienholder is Capital One Finance and Plaintiff argues 6 || that under California law he is not the legal owner for purposes of claiming the vehicle as 7 asset but provides no legal authority or cite any California statute that supports that 8 || position. Plaintiff cites Escobedo and Lee v. McDonald's Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 459 (8" Cir. 9 ||2000) to support this argument, but neither case discusses vehicle ownership under 10 || California law. 11 Finally, Plaintiff argues that the requirement to pay a filing fee violates the First 12 || Amendment to freely petition the government for a redress of grievances. ECF No. 4 at 4. 13 || Once again, Plaintiff does not cite any binding legal authority to support this argument. 14 Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the Order Denying his Motion to Proceed 15 || IFP is DENIED. Plaintiff shall have until September 19, 2025, to either pay the filing fee 16 |/or file a new IFP application, signed under penalty of perjury. If Plaintiff does not pay the 17 || filing fee or file a renewed motion to proceed IFP or files an incomplete motion to proceed 18 || IFP by September 19, 2025, the Clerk of Court shall dismiss the case without prejudice and 19 || terminate the action. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: September 11, 2025 22 Soar Str, 23 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge 25 26 27 28