Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 Case No.: 26-cv-03816-DMS-JAC 9 CARLA MCEWEN, 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 11 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS PLM LOAN MANAGEMENT 12 SYSTEMS et al., 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 On June 30, 2026, Plaintiff Carla McEwen, proceeding pro se, filed this action 18 against Defendants PLM Loan Management Systems, Note Servicing Center, Inc., Chicago 19 Title Insurance, Dennis Conklin, John Mayer, and Does 1–100. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1). 20 Plaintiff asserts various federal and state-law claims related to the alleged foreclosure of 21 her home. (Id. at 1, 3). Plaintiff concurrently filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 22 (“IFP Motion”). (IFP Mot., ECF No. 2). For the following reasons, the Court directs the 23 Clerk of Court to unseal this action, denies Plaintiff’s IFP Motion, and dismisses the action 24 without prejudice. 25 As a preliminary matter, this action was docketed under nature-of-suit code “376 26 Qui Tam (31 U.S.C. 3729(a))” and placed under seal. (ECF No. 1-1); see 31 U.S.C. §§ 27 3729–3733. Although the Complaint is labeled with “Quit Tam” and “Qui Tam,” it does 28 not assert a claim under the False Claims Act or purport to bring any claims on behalf of 1 the United States. (See Compl. 1–3). As a claim has not been asserted under § 3729, the 2 action is not required to be sealed pursuant to § 3730(b)(2). Because no other basis for 3 sealing this case has been identified, the Clerk of Court is directed to unseal this action and 4 correct the nature-of-suit code to reflect the claims plead. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. 5 of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (“A party seeking to seal a judicial record 6 then bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling 7 reasons’ standard.”). 8 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 9 Parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay a filing fee 10 of $405. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)–(b).1 However, a court may authorize a party to proceed in 11 forma pauperis (“IFP”) without the prepayment of fees if the party submits an affidavit 12 demonstrating their inability to pay. § 1915(a)(1); see CivLR 3.2(a) (listing specific 13 requirements for the affidavit). Although a party need not be “absolutely destitute” to 14 proceed IFP, they must “allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” 15 such that they could not “pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” 16 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation modified). 17 Plaintiff’s IFP Motion consists of an Application to Proceed in District Court 18 Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Form AO 239). (IFP Mot. 1). Plaintiff appears to report 19 average monthly income over the past twelve months of approximately $15,600 from self- 20 employment, gifts, and her mother’s pension, but only $1,200 in expected income for the 21 next month. (Id. at 1–2). Plaintiff states that she has $156 in cash but leaves blank the 22 amount she has in other accounts. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff lists a home valued at “1,100.00” 23 which was lost in foreclosure and a 2019 Alfa Romeo Stelvio. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff itemizes 24 monthly expenses including an illegible amount for utilities, $900 for food, $80 for 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 1 clothing, $500 for homeowner’s insurance, and $253 for car insurance, but leaves several 2 || lines blank and does not total the amount. (/d. at 4-5). Plaintiff states that she is looking 3 || for a job and takes care of her 91-year-old mother who “cannot receive any pension benefits 4 this foreclosure matter is resolved.” (/d. at 5). Due to the missing figures, illegible 5 || writing, and internal inconsistencies, the Court is unable to determine Plaintiff's ability to 6 ||pay. On this record, Plaintiff has not alleged poverty with the requisite “particularity, 7 || definiteness and certainty” to show she “cannot pay the court costs and still afford the 8 ||necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. Accordingly, Plaintiff's □□□ Motion is 9 || denied. 10 II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 11 For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to unseal this action 12 correct the nature-of-suit code. Additionally, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Jn Forma 13 || Pauperis is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Within thirty (30) 14 || days of the issuance of this Order, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion with additional 15 information about her economic status or pay the $405 filing fee. If Plaintiff does neither, 16 Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: August 24, 2026 20 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 1 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28