Tyler Gamble Covarrubias v. Boeing
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff Tyler Gamble Covarrubias's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and found the submitted affidavit insufficient because it failed to explain how the plaintiff sustains himself despite reporting zero income and expenses. The court denied the motion without prejudice, granting the plaintiff until March 16, 2026, to file an amended motion or pay the filing fee, or else the case will be closed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) denied without prejudice“Without further explanation, the current IFP motion (ECF No. 2) is insufficient. The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the requirement that IFP affidavits must state facts with particularity and definiteness. The plaintiff's affidavit contained internal inconsistencies (zero income, zero expenses, no assets, no support) that failed to demonstrate how he meets the necessities of life, which is a prerequisite for IFP status. Denying without prejudice is the appropriate procedural mechanism to allow the plaintiff to cure the deficiency. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for IFP motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, citing binding Ninth Circuit authority (McQuade) and Supreme Court authority (Adkins). The court’s factual finding that the affidavit is insufficient due to the lack of explanation for how the plaintiff survives with zero reported income and expenses is logical and supported by the record described in the order. The remedy of denial without prejudice with a specific deadline is appropriate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYLER GAMBLE COVARRUBIAS, Case No. 26-cv-0834-BAS-BJW 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2) 14 BOEING, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Tyler Gamble Covarrubias filed a complaint against Defendant Boeing 18 (ECF No. 1) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2). 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 2 ||security for costs ... and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities 3 llof life.” /d. 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 v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). Finally, the 7 || facts as to the affiant’s poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness, and 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 March 16, 2026. 17 || Alternatively, Plaintiff may pay the filing fee. The Court warns Plaintiff that if he does 18 || not file an amended IFP motion by March 16, 2026, or pay the filing fee, the Court 19 || will direct the Clerk of Court to close the case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 || DATED: March 2, 2026 (yatta Bahan ke 73 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 24 25 26 27 28