Robert Matthew Elmore v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Robert Matthew Elmore filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) against the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The court denied the IFP motion without prejudice because the affidavit lacked sufficient detail regarding the plaintiff's financial situation, specifically regarding sources of support or living expenses.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis denied without prejudice“The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the requirement that an IFP affidavit must state facts with 'particularity, definiteness, certainty.' The plaintiff's affidavit listed $0 income, $0 assets, and $0 expenses, which is facially inconsistent and fails to explain how the plaintiff sustains himself. Denying the motion without prejudice allows the plaintiff to cure the deficiency, which is a standard and appropriate procedural response to an insufficient affidavit. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for IFP motions in the Ninth Circuit, specifically the need for particularity in the affidavit. The court's observation that a plaintiff with $0 income and $0 expenses must have some means of support is a logical inference that justifies the denial for insufficiency. The denial without prejudice provides the proper remedy for a deficient filing.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT MATTHEW ELMORE, Case No. 25-cv-03343-BAS-MMP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 FEDERAL BUREAU OF (ECF No. 2) INVESTIGATION, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Robert Matthew Elmore filed a complaint against the United States Federal 18 Bureau of Investigation (ECF No. 1) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 19 (ECF No. 2) on the same day. 20 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a litigant who because of indigency is unable to pay the 21 required fees or security to commence a legal action may petition the court to proceed 22 without making such payment. The determination of indigency falls within the district 23 court’s discretion. Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), rev’d 24 on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (holding that “Section 1915 typically requires the 25 reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has 26 satisfied the statute’s requirement of indigency”). It is well-settled that a party need not be 27 completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 28 331, 339–40 (1948). To satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of | poverty] is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give 2 ||security for costs ... and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities 3 llof life.” Jd. at 339. At the same time, however, “the same even-handed care must be 4 ||employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense 5 ||... the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to 6 || pull his own oar.” Temple vy. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). Finally, 7 facts as to the affiant’s poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness, 8 certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). 9 Here, the Court concludes that there is insufficient information to determine whether 10 || Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed IFP. Plaintiff lists that he has $0 in income, $0 11 |;}expected income, no assets, and no monthly expenses. Plaintiff does not indicate any 12 streams of income, including state or federal financial aid. Plaintiff also does not indicate 13 || whether someone else is financially supporting him. Plaintiff must have some way to pay 14 || for living expenses. Without further explanation, the current IFP motion (ECF No. 2) is 15 |/insufficient. The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 16 If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended IFP motion, he must do so by December 10, 17 ||}2025. Alternatively, Plaintiff may also pay the filing fee. The Court warns Plaintiff that if 18 || he does not file an amended IFP motion by December 10, 2025, or pay the filing fee, the 19 Court will DIRECT the Clerk of Court to close the case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 DATED: December 1, 2025 (pallu Bahar te 73 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 24 25 26 27 28