Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOLEE KIMBLE, Case No.: 26-CV-1208 JLS (JLB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING APPLICATION TO 14 MICHAEL BERGEN, JR., et al., PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT 15 Defendants. WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS, AND 16 17 (2) DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 18 COMPLAINT 19 (ECF Nos. 1, 2). 20 21 Presently before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Jolee Kimble’s Complaint (“Compl.,” 22 ECF No. 1) and Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 23 (“IFP Appl.,” ECF No. 2). Having carefully considered Plaintiff’s Complaint and the 24 applicable law, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s IFP Application 25 and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 2 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 3 United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405.1 4 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee 5 only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1915(a)(1). 7 Section 1915(a)(1) provides: 8 [A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or 9 proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, 10 by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay 11 such fees or give security therefor. 12 13 As § 1915(a)(1) does not itself define what constitutes insufficient assets to warrant 14 IFP status, the determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. See 15 Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Section 1915 typically 16 requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the 17 affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of indigency.”), reversed on other grounds 18 by, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where 19 it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” 20 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont 21 de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). “One need not be absolutely destitute to 22 obtain benefits of the [IFP] statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 23 1960). “Nevertheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some 24 particularity, definiteness[,] and certainty.’” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 27 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. 28 Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed 1 In Plaintiffs IFP Application, Plaintiff states that her monthly income is 2 $2,900.00—all from public assistance. IFP App. at 2. Plaintiff does not provide any details 3 || regarding her monthly expenses, but states that she expects major changes in her assets or 4 || liabilities during the next twelve months. See id. at 5. Plaintiff does not provide any 5 ||explanation for what major changes she expects in the next year—despite the form 6 || directing her to do so. /d. (“If yes, describe on an attached sheet.”). She also provides 7 ||Some information under the employer section, but the Court cannot discern what Plaintiff 8 || wrote in that section. /d. at 2. Without more information, the Court cannot determine 9 ||whether granting Plaintiffs IFP Application is warranted. Accordingly, the Court 10 || DENIES Plaintiff's IFP Application. 1] CONCLUSION 12 In light of the foregoing, the Court: 13 1. DENIES Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without 14 || Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2). 15 2. DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE 16 || for failure to prepay the filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. §1914(a). 17 3. GRANTS Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days from the date on which this 18 |/Order is electronically docketed to either (1) pay the entire $402 statutory and 19 || administrative filing fee, or (2) file a new IFP Application alleging that they are unable to 20 || pay the requisite fee. Should Plaintiff fail to either pay the filing fee or file a new IFP 21 || Motion, the Court will convert this dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint into dismissal of 22 || this civil action without prejudice. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: March 19, 2026 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 27 28