Myah Herrel v. City of Escondido, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Myah Herrel moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil action against the City of Escondido. The court denied the motion because the application contained a significant discrepancy regarding her income, failing to meet the requirement to state poverty with particularity.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis“The IFP motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Jefferson v. United States that a plaintiff must state facts regarding poverty with particularity. The application listed an average monthly income of $15,000 (implying $180,000 annually) while also referencing a previous salary of $1,500 monthly. The court found this discrepancy too large to overlook as a simple typo given the burden of proof. While the court noted the potential typo, it strictly adhered to the requirement for particularity, making the denial a defensible application of the cited law. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the deficiency in the IFP application. It cites the correct controlling authority for the standard of review (particularity) and applies it logically to the conflicting income figures presented in the plaintiff's filing. The reasoning is sufficient to support the denial.
Opinion
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || Myah HERREL, Case No.: 26-cv-2061-AGS-JLB 4 pean ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S IFP 5 || V. MOTION (ECF 2) 6 || CITY OF ESCONDIDO, et al., 7 Defendant. 8 9 Plaintiff Myah Herrel moves to proceed without paying the usual $405 in court-filing 10 || fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, S.D. Cal. (effective Dec. 11 1, 2023). If granted the right to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), a plaintiff can proceed 12 || without paying those fees. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). To 13 qualify for that status, plaintiff must “state the facts as to [her] poverty with some 14 || particularity.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960). 15 Herrel has not met this standard—her IFP application lists “$15,000” as her 16 || “[a]verage monthly income during the past 12 months.” (ECF 2, at 1.) That she was “forced 17 move,” works a “job” that “is far away,” and “make[s] less now” does not render a 18 $180,000 salary a poverty wage. (See id. at 5.) To be sure, in other parts of her application, 19 |/she lists that her previous employer paid her only “$1,500” “monthly,” so the initial 20 ||““15,000” listing may have been a typo. (See id. at 2.) But that $13,500 monthly typo is too 21 || large to overlook given Herrel’s burden to state with “particularity” her state of “poverty.” 22 || See Jefferson, 277 F.2d at 725. 23 The IFP motion is DENIED. By August 7, 2026, plaintiff must either pay the filing 24 || fee or resubmit the IFP request. 25 Dated: July 22, 2026 l/ — 26 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler 27 United States District Judge 28 ]
Cites, in this corpus
- Leroy Jefferson v. United States of America, Undocketed 723 · 1960-04-25