CHRISTOPHER WYATT v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.
CHRISTOPHER WYATT v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Christopher Wyatt moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil action against the County of San Diego and others. The court denied the motion because the plaintiff's reported income and assets demonstrated an ability to pay the filing fee, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the fee within 14 days or face case closure.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's IFP motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the statutory standard for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The plaintiff's affidavit disclosed monthly income of $5,400 and assets of over $682,000, which objectively demonstrates the ability to pay the $405 filing fee. The denial is supported by the record recited in the order. |
Order requiring payment of filing fee by July 27, 2026, or closure of the case on July 28, 2026.“Plaintiff has until July 27, 2026 to pay the required filing fee. If Plaintiff does not pay the filing fee, the Clerk of Court shall close the case on July 28, 2026.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural consequence of denying IFP status in a non-habeas civil action. The court is enforcing the requirement that the filing fee be paid to maintain the action. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate statutory and case law authorities. The factual basis for the denial (income and assets) is explicitly stated and clearly contradicts the requirement of indigency. The reasoning is direct and answers the motion with the right authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 CHRISTOPHER WYATT, Case No.: 3:26-cv-02513-CAB-DDL Plaintiff, 14 ORDER DENYING APPLICATION v. 15 TO PROCEED IFP 16 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 [Doc. No. 2] 19 20 21 22 Before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher Wyatt’s motion for leave to proceed in 23 forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Doc. No. 2.] Plaintiff filed his IFP motion in connection with a 24 complaint against the County of San Diego, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department 25 (together, “Defendants”), and Doe Defendants 1–50. [Doc. No. 1 (“Complaint”).] 26 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 27 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 28 1 ||$405.' See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A party may initiate a civil action without prepaying the 2 required filing fee if the Court grants leave to proceed IFP based on indigency. 28 U.S.C. 3 1915(a); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 2007). To satisfy the 4 ||requirements of § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states that one 5 ||cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be able to 6 || provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de 7 Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 8 || Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2015). 9 Here, Plaintiff provides the Court with a sufficiently detailed application as required 10 || by § 1915(a). [Doc. No. 2.] However, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate an inability to pay fees 11 |} and costs or to give security for them, as he receives monthly disability payments of $5,400 12 possesses reported assets totaling $682,001.50. [Doc. No. 2.] Plaintiffs income and 13 || assets demonstrate that he can pay the required filing fee. 14 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's IFP motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 15 || Plaintiff has until July 27, 2026 to pay the required filing fee. If Plaintiff does not pay the 16 || filing fee, the Clerk of Court shall close the case on July 28, 2026. 17 Itis SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: July 13, 2026 20 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 || 27 Civil litigants must pay an administrative fee of $55 in addition to the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. 1914(@) Gudicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.