Ricardo Jonathan Grub Morrison v. Chabad of San Diego State University and Oxnard
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and found the submitted financial statements incomplete and inconsistent. The court denied the IFP motion, directed the Clerk to close the case, and provided the plaintiff with forms to re-file or pay the filing fee.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Denied“The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP application.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proving indigency under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) due to contradictory financial data (claiming $0 income while listing employment and wages). Denial is appropriate when the affidavit is incomplete or inconsistent, as the court cannot assess eligibility. The court also correctly noted the option to pay the fee or re-file. |
Case Closed“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP and directs the Clerk of Court to close the case.” | agree with court Closing the case is the standard procedural consequence when an IFP motion is denied and the plaintiff has not paid the filing fee. The court provided clear instructions for reopening the case. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the statutory standard for IFP, identifies specific factual deficiencies in the plaintiff's affidavit (inconsistencies in income/expenses), and provides clear next steps. The discussion of screening under § 1915(e)(2)(B) is appropriate as a warning to the pro se plaintiff, even though the case is being closed for failure to pay the fee or prove indigency. No significant legal errors or gaps are apparent.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RICARDO JONATHAN GRUB Case No.: 3:25-cv-03569-CAB-AHG MORRISON, 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION 11 TO PROCEED IFP v. 12 CHABAD OF SAN DIEGO STATE 13 UNIVERSITY AND OXNARD, [Doc. No. 1] 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Ricardo Jonathan Grub Morrison (“Plaintiff” or “Morrison”) has filed a civil 18 complaint against Chabad of San Diego State University and Oxnard, [Doc. No. 1 19 (“Complaint.”)], along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Doc. No. 3.] 20 For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. ANALYSIS 2 A. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 3 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 4 United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 5 $405.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A party may initiate a civil action without prepaying the 6 required filing fee if the Court grants leave to proceed IFP based on indigency. 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1915(a); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 2007). To satisfy the 8 requirements of § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states that one 9 cannot because of [her] poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be able to 10 provide [for herself] and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E. I. DuPont 11 de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 12 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2015). 13 Here, Plaintiff submitted incomplete and inconsistent financial statements. [Doc. 14 Nos. 1, 3.] For example, in one document, Plaintiff lists a monthly income of $0 and 15 monthly expenses of $0, despite also listing employment starting October 20, 2025 at a rate 16 of $17.25 / hour. [Doc. No. 3 at 2.] And in another document, he lists receiving 17 approximately “$1,800±” in the past twelve months from wages, salary, commissions or 18 earned income of any kind, as well as $432.10 in monthly living expenses. [Complaint at 19 11, 13.] 20 The Court cannot properly assess Plaintiff’s IFP application without complete and 21 noncontradictory documentation as to Plaintiff’s eligibility to proceed IFP. The Court 22 therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP application. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his Complaint, 23 he must pay the filing fee or submit a complete IFP application. 24 /// 25 26 27 1 Civil litigants must pay an administrative fee of $55 in addition to the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 28 1 B. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 2 If Plaintiff submits a completed IFP and the Court grants it, the Court must then 3 screen the complaint and sua sponte dismiss it to the extent that it fails to state a claim or 4 ||seeks damages from defendants who are immune. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez 5 || v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Section 1915(e)(2)(B) is not 6 || limited to prisoners; instead, it applies to all cases in which the plaintiff proceeds IFP. See 7 || Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001). 8 Given Plaintiff's position as a pro se litigant, the Court notes that the current 9 || Complaint has several defects that would likely lead to sua sponte dismissal in its current 10 |/form. First, the Complaint appears related to a restraining order against Plaintiff but is 11 otherwise nearly impossible to decipher. Plaintiff must clearly identify the law or right he 12 || thinks was violated, explain what each defendant did, when and where they did it, and how 13 defendant’s acts or omissions caused him harm. Second, the Complaint does not 14 ||indicate whether or how federal jurisdiction is appropriate. Third, the local rules require 15 || that all filed documents are in English, CivLR 5.1, and the Complaint contains many pages 16 Spanish. 17 ||. = CONCLUSION 18 The Court DENIES Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP and directs the Clerk of 19 || Court to close the case. To re-open the case, Plaintiff must either (1) pay the required filing 20 || fee or (2) submit a fully completed IFP application that is granted by the Court. 21 The Court further directs the Clerk of Court to mail the Plaintiff'a copy of this Order, 22 blank copy of this District’s Application to Proceed IFP, and a blank copy of this 23 || District’s Pro Se Non-Prisoner Form Complaint for a Civil Case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: February 4, 2026 OB *6 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 27 United States District Judge 28