Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYLER GAMBLE COVARRUBIOS, Case No.: 3:26-cv-1144-CAB-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IFP AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT 14 DONALD TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On February 23, 2026, Plaintiff Tyler Gamble Covarrubios, proceeding pro se, filed 18 a complaint against Defendant Donald Trump Administration. [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff did 19 not prepay the civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time of filing; instead, 20 he filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 [Doc. No. 2.] For the reasons below, the Court DENIES the IFP motion and DISMISSES 22 the complaint with prejudice. 23 I. Motion to Proceed IFP 24 Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this Court must pay a filing fee. See 25 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). But under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may 26 authorize any suit’s commencement, prosecution, or defense without payment of fees if the 27 plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing he or 28 she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege 1 || poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 2 ||F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s IFP 3 || application is entirely blank. [See generally Doc. No. 2.] Accordingly, the Court DENIES 4 || Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP. 5 II. Screening of the Complaint 6 A plaintiff seeking to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to sua 7 || sponte dismissal if the complaint is “frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which 8 ||relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 9 relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 10 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); 11 || Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only 12 || permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to 13 a claim.”). Congress enacted this safeguard because “a litigant whose filing fees and 14 || court costs are assumed by the public... lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing 15 || frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) 16 || (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). 17 The complaint lacks any factual allegations and is wholly incoherent and frivolous. 18 ||[See generally Doc. No. 1.] Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the complaint with 19 || prejudice. 20 It is SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: April 14, 2026 € 22 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28