Roland Hill v. United States of America, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Roland Hill moved for reconsideration of the court's denial of his application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The court denied the motion, finding that Hill's income and assets demonstrated he could afford the filing fee.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration (ECF 6) is DENIED.“Accordingly, Hill’s reconsideration motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for IFP eligibility, noting that a plaintiff must allege poverty with particularity and that the ability to pay is a key factor. The court's calculation of Hill's disposable income ($719/month) against the filing fee ($405) supports the conclusion that he is not indigent. The citation to *Kona Enters.* regarding the 'extraordinary remedy' of reconsideration is appropriate context, though the primary basis for denial is the substantive failure to meet IFP criteria. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for IFP eligibility under Ninth Circuit precedent (*Escobedo*) and applies the specific financial facts recited in the order (income, expenses, assets) to demonstrate that the plaintiff can afford the filing fee. The reliance on *Kona Enters.* appropriately frames the high bar for reconsideration, while the substantive analysis provides the primary justification for the denial.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Roland HILL, Case No.: 26-cv-0494-AGS-BLM 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING 5 v. RECONSIDERATION (ECF 6)
6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 7 Defendants.
8 9 Plaintiff Roland Hill seeks reconsideration of this Court’s ruling on his motion to 10 proceed in forma pauperis, that is, without paying the usual $405 in court fees. This Court 11 initially denied that request because Hill had already paid those fees. (See ECF 1; ECF 3; 12 ECF 5.) Even setting aside the high standard for reconsideration motions, Hill doesn’t 13 qualify for a waiver of the fee-payment requirement. See Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 14 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that reconsideration is an “extraordinary 15 remedy”). 16 “[A] party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP [in forma pauperis].” 17 See Blount v. Saul, No. 21-cv-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 18 2021). But “a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some particularity, 19 definiteness, and certainty.’” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). 20 “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant 21 cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Id. 22 Hill has a combined income of $2,100 per month from retirement accounts and 23 “other” sources. (See ECF 3, at 1–2.) He claims he has approximately $8,000 in bank 24 accounts and no other assets. (See id. at 2–3.) Including his necessities, such as food and 25 housing, Hill asserts he has “$1,381” in monthly expenses (see ECF, 2 at 4–5), which 26 leaves him with $719 of disposable income per month. That means he can afford the filing 27 fee over and above his expenses with less than a month’s disposable income, not even 28 including his other assets and savings. Though there is no “formula set forth by statute,” | || Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235, Hill’s monthly disposable income is such that “the Court and 2 || taxpayers” should not “bear the burden of paying [p]laintiff’s filing fee,” Jackson v. Wollet, 3 || No. 1:24-cv-00585-JLT-EPG (PC), 2024 WL 4250643, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2024). 4 Accordingly, Hill’s reconsideration motion is DENIED. 5 ||Dated: March 13, 2026 7 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28