Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANTEA COOPER, Case No.: 3:26-cv-03680-CAB-DEB 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER: v. 13 (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S G. ESCOBEDO and 14 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP; JOHN/JANE DOE, and 15 Defendants. 16 (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 17 18 [Doc. No. 2]

19 20 21 On June 17, 2026, Plaintiff Dantea Cooper, a former state prisoner proceeding pro 22 se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff has failed to pay the 23 filing fee and instead has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 24 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [Doc. No. 2.] Having carefully considered Plaintiff’s complaint, 25 Plaintiff’s IFP motion, and the applicable law, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP motion 26 and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. IFP 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 a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 4 $405, which includes a $350 statutory fee and an additional administrative fee of $55. See 5 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee 6 Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply 7 to persons granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. An action may proceed despite 8 a party’s failure to pay the filing fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed IFP 9 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), which provides: 10 [A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or 11 proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without 12 prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] 13 possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give 14 security therefor.

15 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). But § 1915(a)(1) does not itself define what constitutes insufficient 16 assets to warrant IFP status, leaving the determination of indigency to district courts’ 17 discretion. See Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 18 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise 19 its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s 20 requirement of indigency.”), reversed on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). While 21 “[o]ne need not be absolutely destitute to obtain” IFP status, Jefferson v. United States, 277 22 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960), a person seeking it “must allege poverty ‘with some 23 particularity, definiteness[,] and certainty.’” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 24 (9th Cir. 2015). 25 In service of the IFP qualification inquiry, the Administrative Office of the United 26 States Courts provides Form AO 239 (rev. 01/15), titled “Application to Proceed in District 27 Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs.” 28 /// 1 Importantly, AO 239 contains the following statement, which must be signed and dated by 2 the person seeking IFP status: 3 I am a plaintiff or petitioner in this case and declare that I am unable to pay the costs of these proceedings and that I am entitled 4 to the relief requested. I declare under penalty of perjury that the 5 information below is true and understand that a false statement may result in a dismissal of my claims. 6 7 Form AO 239, at 1. Form AO 239 requires information regarding the individual’s income, 8 employment, assets, debts, accounts receivable, and so forth. Id. at 1–5. Likewise, the 9 Local Rules of this Court direct IFP movants to file “an affidavit that includes a statement 10 of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security. This affidavit must 11 consist of a declaration in support of request to proceed in forma pauperis.” CivLR 3.2(a); 12 see also CivLR 3.2(a)(1)–(7) (listing numerous financial statements that movants must 13 submit in their “declaration . . . under penalty of perjury”); Civ.LR 3.2(f) (requiring 14 submission of financial affidavit “at the time the suit . . . is submitted for filing”). 15 Plaintiff, however, has not submitted a sworn Form AO 239 or other comparable 16 instrument. His request is unsworn, stating only that he is “an unemployed indigent 17 homeless man.” [Doc. No. 2 at 1.] The Court therefore does not have sufficient 18 information backed by declaration, oath, or affirmation from which to evaluate Plaintiff’s 19 ability to pay the requisite filing fee. 20 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP Application. This denial is 21 WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff refiling an IFP application that cures the above- 22 noted deficiencies. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Hi. CONCLUSION 2 Thus, for the reasons explained, the Court: 3 1. DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP. [Doc. No. 2]. 4 2. DISMISSES the civil action without prejudice for failure to prepay the filing 5 || fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 6 3. GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave in which to re-open his case by 7 either: (a) prepaying the full $405 civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) in one 8 || lump sum; or (b) filing an application to proceed IFP that includes a properly executed AO 9 || 239. 10 4. DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff with a blank AO 239 (Rev. 11 |/01/15). If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order by either paying the full $405 civil filing 12 || fee or by submitting a complete AO 239 IFP application within 45 days, this civil action 13 || will remain dismissed without prejudice and without further Order of the Court.' 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 ||Dated: August 7, 2026 (GR 16 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo V7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' Plaintiff is cautioned that if he chooses to proceed further by submitting a properly supported motion to proceed IFP, his complaint will be screened before service and may be dismissed sua sponte. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 27 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss a case if the court determines that the action: “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a clatm on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a 28 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners[.]’”).