Mohammad Aman Ataie v. Depindence of the United States
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil action against the 'Depindence of the United States.' The court denied the IFP motion due to incomplete and inconsistent financial disclosures and dismissed the action without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff 30 days to cure the deficiencies or pay the filing fee.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the requirement that an IFP applicant must provide a complete affidavit demonstrating inability to pay. The plaintiff failed to complete the required Form AO 239, leaving significant sections blank and providing inconsistent income figures. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Local Rule 3.2(a), the court is not required to accept an incomplete application. The denial is supported by the record recited in the order. |
Dismissal of the action without prejudice“Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.” | agree with court Because the plaintiff failed to pay the required filing fee and was denied IFP status, the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed. Dismissal without prejudice is the standard remedy in such circumstances, allowing the plaintiff to refile if they cure the deficiency (pay the fee or provide a valid IFP affidavit) within the specified time frame. |
Denial of Motion to Appoint Counsel as moot“As the Complaint is dismissed, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED AS MOOT.” | agree with court Since the underlying action was dismissed, there is no pending case in which counsel could be appointed. Denying the motion as moot is procedurally correct. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory and local rule requirements for IFP status. It accurately recites the deficiencies in the plaintiff's application (incomplete form, inconsistent figures) and applies the correct legal standard from *Escobedo*. The remedy (dismissal without prejudice with an opportunity to cure) is appropriate and standard for this type of procedural failure. There are no significant gaps or errors in the reasoning.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 Case No.: 26-cv-03909-DMS-GC 9 MOHAMMAD AMAN ATAIE, 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 11 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS DEPINDENCE OF THE 12 UNITED STATES, 13 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 On July 8, 2026, Plaintiff Mohammad Aman Ataie, proceeding pro se, filed this 18 action against “Depindence of the United States.” (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff concurrently 19 filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Motion”) and a Motion to Appoint 20 Counsel, which are currently pending before the Court. (IFP Mot., ECF No. 2; ECF No. 21 3).1 For the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s IFP Motion and dismisses the 22 action without prejudice. 23 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 24 Parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay a filing fee 25 26 27 1 As the Complaint is dismissed, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED AS MOOT. (ECF 28 1 of $405. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)–(b). However, a court may authorize a party to proceed in 2 forma pauperis (“IFP”) without the prepayment of fees if the party submits an affidavit 3 demonstrating their inability to pay. § 1915(a)(1); see CivLR 3.2(a) (listing specific 4 requirements for the affidavit). Although a party need not be “absolutely destitute” to 5 proceed IFP, they must “allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” 6 such that they could not “pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” 7 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation modified). 8 Plaintiff’s IFP Motion consists of an Application to Proceed in District Court 9 Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Form AO 239). (IFP Mot. 1). The form instructs the 10 affiant to “[c]omplete all questions” and not to “leave any blanks: if the answer to a 11 question is ‘0,’ ‘none,’ or ‘not applicable (N/A),’ write that response.” (Id.). Plaintiff has 12 submitted only the first three of the form’s five pages, leaving unanswered questions about 13 his monthly expenses, expected changes to income, and amounts spent in connection with 14 this lawsuit. (Id. at 1–3). Furthermore, the application contains inconsistent figures, such 15 as listing average monthly employment income as $950 but stating that Plaintiff’s gross 16 pay was $2,500 per month from July 5, 2022 to present. (Id. at 1–2). The missing answers 17 are required pursuant to the Local Rules and their absence leaves the Court unable to 18 properly assess Plaintiff’s inability to pay fees. See CivLR 3.2(a) (listing required 19 information including the answers to questions Plaintiff omitted). 20 II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 21 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is 22 DENIED. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Within thirty (30) 23 days of the issuance of this Order, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion with complete 24 information about his economic status or pay the $405 filing fee. If Plaintiff does neither, 25 26 2 The $405 fee consists of a $350 filing fee mandated by § 1914(a) and a $55 administrative fee prescribed 27 by the Judicial Conference of the United States pursuant to § 1914(b). See Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023). However, the filing fee for an 28 | |} the Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: August 24, 2026 2» A fon yn. 5 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 6 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