La Dell Grizzell v. San Elijo Elementary School; San Marcos Unified School District
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and found the affidavit insufficient because it failed to explain how the plaintiff paid $7,200 in monthly expenses on $1,060 in monthly income. The court denied the IFP motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, granting the plaintiff until July 2, 2026, to pay the filing fee or file a renewed application.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied“Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP, ECF No. 2, is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Escobedo v. Applebees, requiring a plaintiff to allege poverty with particularity, definiteness, and certainty. The order identifies a specific factual inconsistency in the plaintiff's affidavit (expenses significantly exceeding income without explanation) that prevents the court from determining if the plaintiff can afford necessities of life while paying fees. This is a proper exercise of the court's discretion to deny IFP status when the affidavit is facially insufficient. |
Complaint Dismissed Without Prejudice“Accordingly, the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. ECF No. 1.” | agree with court Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), if a plaintiff is denied IFP status, the court must dismiss the action unless the plaintiff pays the filing fee. The dismissal is without prejudice to allow the plaintiff to cure the deficiency by paying the fee or filing a sufficient IFP application within the specified timeframe. This follows standard procedure for IFP denials. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for IFP applications in the Ninth Circuit. It applies this standard to the specific facts recited in the plaintiff's affidavit, noting the logical inconsistency between reported income and expenses. The conclusion that the affidavit lacks the requisite particularity is supported by the record described in the order. The dismissal without prejudice and the provision of a deadline to cure the defect are procedurally appropriate.
Opinion
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 LA DELL GRIZZELL, Case No.: 26-cv-3116-BJC-GC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 8 v. AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT 9 SAN ELIJO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; WITHOUT PREJUDICE et al., 10 Defendants. 11 [ECF No. 1, 2]
12 On May 19, 2026, La Dell Grizzell, proceeding pro se, filed the instant complaint 13 against San Elijo Elementary School and San Marcos Unified School District. ECF No. 1. 14 Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. 15 For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP and 16 dismisses the complaint without prejudice. 17 DISCUSSION 18 Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. See 19 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the court 20 may authorize the commencement, prosecution, or defense of any suit without payment of 21 fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, 22 showing that he or she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “An affidavit in support of an 23 IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and 24 still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 25 2015). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, 26 definiteness and certainty.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The granting or denial 27 of leave to proceed IFP in civil cases is within the sound discretion of the district court. 28 1 || Venerable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted). 2 In her application, Plaintiff represents that she has been unemployed for the past two 3 || years and has no funds in any bank account. She further states that she owns no vehicle, 4 || real property, or business, and that her only source of income is $1,060 per month in child 5 ||support. At the same time, Plaintiff reports monthly expenses totaling approximately 6 ||$7,200. The application does not explain how these expenses are paid in light of her 7 claimed lack of income and assets. 8 Given the absence of sufficient detail regarding Plaintiffs financial circumstances, 9 || the Court cannot determine whether she lacks the resources to pay the filing fee while still 10 || affording the necessities of life. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 11 |}2015). Because the application lacks the requisite particularity, definiteness, and certainty, 12 || Plaintiff has not established entitlement to proceed IFP. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to 13 || proceed IFP, ECF No. 2, is DENIED without prejudice. 14 CONCLUSION 15 In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP is DENIED without 16 prejudice. ECF No. 2. Accordingly, the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 17 || ECF No. 1. Plaintiff shall have until July 2, 2026, to pay the entire filing fee or file a 18 ||renewed application to proceed IFP. Failure to pay the filing fee or file a renewed 19 || application to proceed IFP will result in this case being closed without further order from 20 || the court. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: June 2, 2026 23 24 6 Cb a fu 25 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 27 28 26-cv-3116-BJC-GC