Mehmet Kutay v. SDH Services West LLC.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) which contained incomplete financial information and internal inconsistencies. The court denied the motion and granted the plaintiff thirty days to pay the filing fee or file a renewed application.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis denied“Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Escobedo v. Applebees, requiring an affidavit showing inability to pay while affording necessities of life. The order recites specific factual deficiencies: blank required fields, a discrepancy between claimed assets ($1,000 total) and claimed monthly expenses ($3,755), and a failure to list dependents despite claiming to support a child. These omissions and inconsistencies render the affidavit insufficient to establish indigency. The denial is supported by the record recited in the order. |
Plaintiff granted thirty days to pay filing fee or file renewed IFP application“Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of this order to pay the filing fee or file a renewed application to proceed IFP.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural remedy following the denial of an IFP motion, allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to cure the deficiencies or pay the fee. It is consistent with local practice and federal procedure. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Escobedo). It applies this standard to the specific facts of the plaintiff's application, noting specific blanks and financial inconsistencies that undermine the claim of indigency. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities. There are no significant gaps in the analysis for this procedural motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MEHMET KUTAY, Case No.: 26-cv-2949-RSH-AHG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 SDH SERVICES WEST LLC., 14 Defendant. [ECF No. 2]
16 On May 11, 2026, plaintiff Mehmet Kutay, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to 17 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. 18 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 19 United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405.1 20 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee 21 only if the party is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 22 Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999); see Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. 23 24 25 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); United States Courts, District Court 26 Miscellaneous Fee Schedule § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023), 27 https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee-schedule. The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed 28 1 Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (“All persons, not just prisoners, may 2 seek IFP status.”). A federal court may authorize the commencement of an action without 3 the prepayment of fees if the party submits an affidavit, including a statement of assets, 4 showing an inability to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in 5 support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the 6 court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 7 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). 8 Plaintiff’s IFP application is incomplete. The IFP application states in relevant part: 9 “[c]omplete all questions in this application and then sign it. Do not leave any blanks: if 10 the answer to a question is ‘0,’ ‘none,’ or ‘not applicable (N/A),’ write that response.” ECF 11 No. 2 at 1. On the form application, Plaintiff leaves many required questions blank. Id. at 12 2-3. Plaintiff also claims that he and his spouse have no income and no assets except for 13 $500 cash and a $500 motor vehicle, yet he claims to have a total of $3,755/month in 14 expenses. Id. at 1-5. Plaintiff also claims that he supports his child, however, in Question 15 7 he leaves the question, “[s]tate the persons who rely on you or your spouse for support,” 16 blank. Id. at 3, 5. Based on the lack of “particularity, definiteness and certainty” in the 17 information provided, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the 18 filing fee and “still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 (citations 19 omitted). As such, Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is denied. See Kirkpatrick v. San 20 Diego Police, No. 23-CV-762-GPC-KSC, 2023 WL 3728686, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 30, 21 2023) (finding plaintiff’s IFP application “incomplete and inconclusive” due to 22 “conflicting statements and omissions regarding their finances”); Marko v. 7-11 Store 23 Corp., No. 2:25-cv-03160-DC-SCR, 2025 WL 3540669, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2025) 24 (denying IFP motion because the “application contains several omissions and 25 ambiguities”). 26 III. CONCLUSION 27 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. ECF No. 28 2. 1 Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of this order to pay the filing 2 || fee or file a renewed application to proceed IFP. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. : Dated: August 14, 2026 fohut ¢ Lore 6 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28