David Solis v. Louis De Joy and Adrian Barajas
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff David Solis filed a complaint and a concurrent motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) against two defendants. The court granted the IFP motion based on the plaintiff's affidavit showing monthly expenses exceeded household income, and tolled the defendants' response deadline due to a government funding lapse.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Granted“For the reasons discussed, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and *Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.*, which requires only that the plaintiff cannot pay fees while still providing for necessities. The affidavit showed a monthly deficit of $1,834.00, which supports a finding of indigency despite the presence of assets, as the assets do not generate current income to cover the deficit. |
Deadline for Defendants to Respond Tolled“the Court TOLLS the deadline for Defendants to respond to the Complaint under General Order 766 until Congress restores appropriations to the United States Department of Justice.” | agree with court The court relied on General Order 766 to toll the deadline due to a lapse in appropriations for the DOJ. This is a procedural administrative action consistent with the cited local order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory standard for IFP status and applies it to the specific financial facts provided in the affidavit. The finding that expenses exceed income supports the grant of IFP status. The tolling of the response deadline is a procedural measure based on a specific General Order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID SOLIS, Case No. 25-cv-01935-BAS-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 LOUIS DE JOY and ADRIAN (ECF No. 2) BARAJAS, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff David Solis filed a complaint against Defendants (ECF No. 1) and a motion 18 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2) concurrently. 19 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a litigant who because of indigency is unable to pay the 20 required fees or security to commence a legal action may petition the court to proceed 21 without making such payment. The determination of indigency falls within the district 22 court’s discretion. Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d 23 on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (holding that “Section 1915 typically requires the 24 reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has 25 satisfied the statute’s requirement of indigency”). It is well-settled that a party need not be 26 completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 27 331, 339–40 (1948). To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of 28 poverty] is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give 1 security for costs ... and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities 2 life.” Jd. at 339. At the same time, however, “the same even-handed care must be 3 |}employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense 4 ||... the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to 5 || pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). Finally, 6 || the facts as to the affiant’s poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness, 7 certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) 8 Here, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has provided sufficient information to show 9 || Plaintiff is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action. Plaintiff 10 |/is currently unemployed and receives $1,103.00 in retirement compensation monthly. (See 11 No. 2.) Plaintiff’s spouse receives $1,781.00 monthly in employment compensation. 12 ||Ud.) Jointly, Plaintiff and Plaintiffs spouse have $2,000 in cash in a checking account. 13 Though Plaintiff has significant assets in real estate and in his motor vehicle, 14 || Plaintiff's total monthly expenses culminate to $4,690.00—exceeding his household’s 15 ||monthly income by $1,834.00. (/d.) Additionally, Plaintiff receives no income from real 16 property, investments, retirement accounts, gifts, or alimony. (/d.) For the reasons 17 || discussed, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP motion. 18 Further, given that Defendants are represented by the Civil Division of the United 19 States Attorney’s Office, the Court TOLLS the deadline for Defendants to respond to the 20 ||Complaint under General Order 766 until Congress restores appropriations to the United 21 States Department of Justice. See General Order 766 4] 3-4. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 DATED: October 20, 2025 (Duhark 5 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 26 27 28 ~_9_