Demetrius Jerome Moore; Lacole Regina Moore v. Experian Information Solutions Inc.; Trans Union L.L.C.; Equifax Information Services L.L.C.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs filed a complaint without paying the filing fee, and one plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The court denied the motion without prejudice, requiring both plaintiffs to either pay the fee or submit individual IFP applications by a specific deadline to avoid dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff Lacole Regina Moore's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) without prejudice.“Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff Lacole Regina Moore’s motion to proceed IFP.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the rule that in a multi-plaintiff action, all plaintiffs must qualify for IFP status. Because only one of the two plaintiffs submitted an IFP application, the court could not grant IFP status to the action as a whole. Denying the motion without prejudice is the appropriate procedural step to allow the missing plaintiff to submit the required documentation. |
Ordering plaintiffs to pay the filing fee or submit complete IFP applications by March 17, 2026, or face dismissal.“If Plaintiffs wish to proceed in this case, Plaintiffs must, or before March 17, 2026, either (1) pay the filing fee or (2) each file a motion to proceed IFP. The Court cautions Plaintiffs that failure to pay the filing fee or submit complete IFP applications by the deadline will result in dismissal of this action.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order to cure a deficiency in the initiation of the lawsuit. It aligns with 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and § 1915(a) requirements. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal requirement that all plaintiffs in a multi-plaintiff action must qualify for IFP status. It cites appropriate district court precedent and statutes. The remedy (denial without prejudice with a deadline to cure) is standard and appropriate for a procedural deficiency at the filing stage.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 25-cv-03529-DMS-SBC DEMETRIUS JEROME MOORE;
12 LACOLE REGINA MOORE; ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 Plaintiffs, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. 14 EXPERIAN INFORMATION [ECF No. 2] 15 SOLUTIONS INC.; TRANS UNION 16 L.L.C.; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES L.L.C., 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaintiffs Demetrius Jerome Moore and Lacole Regina Moore, proceeding pro se, 21 filed a Complaint against Defendants Experian Information Solutions Inc., Trans Union 22 L.L.C., and Equifax Information Services L.L.C. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs did not pay the 23 filing fee. (Id.). Plaintiff Lacole Regina Moore filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 24 pauperis (“IFP”), (Mot., ECF No. 2). The Court denies the motion to proceed IFP without 25 prejudice. 26 Generally, parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court 27 must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s 28 failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant 1 |/to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Ellis-Sanders v. Guardian Piazza D’Oro LLC, No. 24-CV-00408, 2 2024 WL 4442012, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2024) (citations omitted). Any action sought 3 || to be filed IFP “must be accompanied by an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets 4 || which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915; S.D. Cal. 5 || Civ. R. 3.2. “Where there are multiple plaintiffs in a single action, the plaintiffs may not 6 || proceed in forma pauperis unless all of them demonstrate inability to pay the filing fee.” 7 || Ellis-Sanders, 2024 WL 4442012, at *1 (citations omitted); see also Anderson v. State, No. 8 CV 2216, 2010 WL 4316996, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2010) (“[A]lthough only one 9 || filing fee needs to be paid per case, if multiple plaintiffs seek to proceed in forma pauperis, 10 each plaintiff must qualify for IFP status.”’). 1] There are two Plaintiffs in this case. (Compl. 1.) However, only one motion to 12 || proceed IFP, signed by Plaintiff Lacole Regina Moore, was submitted. (Mot. 2.) For 13 || Plaintiffs to collectively proceed IFP, Plaintiff Demetrius Jerome Moore must also submit 14 |/an IFP application. See Jackson v. Wahl, No. 24-CV-1945, 2024 WL 4983156, at *1 (S.D. 15 || Cal. Dec. 4, 2024). Otherwise, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiffs are entitled 16 || to proceed IFP. 17 Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff Lacole Regina 18 || Moore’s motion to proceed IFP. If Plaintiffs wish to proceed in this case, Plaintiffs must, 19 or before March 17, 2026, either (1) pay the filing fee or (2) each file a motion to 20 proceed IFP. The Court cautions Plaintiffs that failure to pay the filing fee or submit 21 ||complete IFP applications by the deadline will result in dismissal of this action.! 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: February 24, 2026 2» 2 hou rn Slo Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28 The Court declines, at this time, to screen Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).