Shaun Reginal Shaw v. Jessica Marshall, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil rights action. The court denied the motion for lack of sufficient particularity regarding the plaintiff's financial status and ordered the plaintiff to file an amended application by September 21, 2026, or face dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed IFP Denied“Plaintiff's IFP application lacks sufficient particularity. The Court therefore DENIES his motion to proceed IFP.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that an IFP application must allege poverty with particularity. The order recites that the plaintiff failed to explain other income sources or expenses, which is a valid basis for finding the affidavit insufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The court also noted a discrepancy in the reported income, further supporting the denial. The remedy of allowing an amended application is consistent with procedural fairness for pro se litigants. |
Order to File Amended Application or Dismissal“Plaintiff must file an amended application by September 21, 2026, or the case shall be DISMISSED.” | agree with court The court exercised its discretion to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to cure the deficiency in the IFP application rather than dismissing the case immediately. This is a common and appropriate procedural step in pro se cases where the deficiency is curable (lack of detail in the affidavit). |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for IFP applications under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and Ninth Circuit precedent. It applies the standard to the specific facts recited (lack of expense details, lack of other income details, and income discrepancy). The conclusion that the application lacks sufficient particularity follows logically from the cited authorities and the record. The remedy provided is appropriate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAUN REGINAL SHAW, Case No.: 3:26-cv-03262-CAB-SBC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IFP 14 JESSICA MARSHALL, et al., [Doc. No. 2] 15 Defendants. 16 17 On May 27, 2026, Plaintiff Shaun Reginal Shaw, proceeding pro se, sued Defendants 18 Jessica Marshall, Victoria F. Ramirez, and Courtney Denice, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 [Doc. No. 1 (“Complaint”).] Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fees required by 28 20 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time of filing; instead, he filed a motion to proceed in forma 21 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [Doc. No. 2.] 22 Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this Court must pay a filing fee. See 23 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Civ. L.R. 4.5(a). But under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may 24 authorize any suit’s commencement, prosecution, or defense without payment of fees if the 25 plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing he or 26 she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is 27 sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the 28 necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). “[A] | || plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and 2 ||certainty.” /d. (internal quotation marks omitted). Granting or denying leave to proceed 3 ||IFP in civil cases is within the district court’s sound discretion. Venable v. Meyers, 500 4 || F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted). 5 Plaintiff states his income is $550 per month from his employment with ACE 6 || Parking, which began on or around April 3, 2025.! [Doc. No. 2 at 2.] However, Plaintiff 7 ||does not explain whether he receives other income, including gifts or family support, or 8 ||has any expenses, including food, transportation, rent, or a mortgage. [See id. at 3—5.] 9 || Plaintiff's IFP application lacks sufficient particularity. The Court therefore DENIES his 10 || motion to proceed IFP. Plaintiff must file an amended application by September 21, 2026, 11 |/or the case shall be DISMISSED. 12 It is SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: August 21, 2026 (ib 14 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' Plaintiff’s IFP application has a discrepancy regarding his monthly reported income. Plaintiff first states 27 |Ihis average monthly income is $500 per month from employment, [Doc. No. 2 at 1], but while listing his 28 employment history, he states his income is $550 per month from his employment with ACE Parking, [Doc. No. 2 at 2]. sy