Edward Leon Guy III v. BBVA Seguros Mexico et al.
- 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) after he had already paid the full filing fee. The court denied the motion, finding it moot regarding the filing fee and unsupported by the plaintiff's financial affidavit.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the primary purpose of an IFP motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is to waive the prepayment of filing fees. Since the docket reflects that the plaintiff paid the $405 fee in full, the request to waive that specific fee is moot. Furthermore, the court applied the correct legal standard from *Escobedo v. Applebees* regarding the requirement to allege poverty with particularity. The plaintiff's reported monthly income of $5,737 and liquid assets of $999, combined with the fact that he could pay the filing fee, support the conclusion that he did not demonstrate an inability to pay court costs while still affording necessities of life. The denial is supported by the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly identifies the mootness of the fee waiver request given the payment of the fee. It correctly applies the Ninth Circuit standard for IFP eligibility. The factual findings regarding the plaintiff's income and assets are explicitly recited and support the legal conclusion. There are no significant gaps in reasoning or missing binding authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 Case No.: 26-cv-03429-DMS-DDL 9 EDWARD LEON GUY III, 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 11 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BBVA SEGUROS MEXICO et al., 12 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 On June 5, 2026, Plaintiff Edward Leon Guy III, proceeding pro se, filed this action 18 against Defendants BBVA Seguros Mexico, S.A. de C.V., Grupo Financiero BBVA 19 Mexico, Francisco Torres, Cassandra Angelica Alfonso Aranda, Rodrigo Morales 20 Sanvicente, Rodriguez Curiel Karla Vanessa, and Does 1–10. (ECF No. 1 at 1). Plaintiff 21 alleges various federal and state-law claims. (Id.). Although Plaintiff paid the filing fee in 22 full, on June 15, 2026, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which is currently 23 pending before the Court. (Mot., ECF No. 3). On August 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First 24 Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 4). For the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s 25 Motion. 26 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 27 Parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay a filing fee 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). (Mot. 1). However, the docket reflects 10 that Plaintiff paid the $405 filing fee in full when he initiated this action on June 5, 2026. 11 (See ECF No. 1-2). As § 1915 authorizes courts to allow a party to proceed “without 12 prepayment of fees,” any request that Plaintiff be excused from the filing fee is moot. 13 § 1915(a)(1). Furthermore, Plaintiff’s own figures do not support IFP status. Plaintiff 14 reports $5,737 in average monthly income over the past twelve months from retirement 15 and VA disability. (Mot. 1–2). Although Plaintiff does not list his VA disability as 16 expected income for the next month, he reports that he does not expect any major changes 17 to his income over the next twelve months and the Court proceeds with the understanding 18 that his monthly income is $5,737. (Id. at 1–2, 5). Plaintiff states that he has $50 in cash 19 and $949 in a checking account. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff itemizes monthly expenses for him 20 and his spouse totaling $6,250, which he expects to reduce to $5,050. (Id. at 4–5). On this 21 record and considering Plaintiff’s payment of the filing fee, Plaintiff has not alleged 22 poverty with the requisite “particularity, definiteness and certainty” to show he “cannot 23 pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. 24 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied. 25 26 1 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 I II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis is 3 || DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: August 24, 2026 2» J ) \ 6 rn Yn « 7 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28