Wilford Dekeesee et al. v. Property Owner Salvation Army NGO et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed a civil action and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) using an application signed by a non-party entity. The Court denied the IFP motion and dismissed the action without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs thirty days to file individual IFP motions or pay the filing fee.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the rule that artificial entities cannot proceed IFP and that all plaintiffs in a multi-plaintiff action must demonstrate inability to pay. The application was signed by a non-party entity, failing to meet the statutory and local rule requirements for an individual affidavit of poverty. |
Action Dismissed Without Prejudice“Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.” | agree with court Dismissal without prejudice is the standard procedural consequence when a plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee or obtain IFP status, preserving the right to refile or cure the deficiency within a set timeframe. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural defects in the IFP motion: the application was filed under a non-party entity's name and lacked individual affidavits for all plaintiffs. The citations to Rowland and the district court precedent regarding multiple plaintiffs are accurate and sufficient to support the denial. The dismissal without prejudice is procedurally appropriate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 Case No.: 26-cv-04174-DMS-DEB 9 WILFORD DEKEESEE et al., 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 11 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS PROPERTY OWNER 12 SALVATION ARMY NGO et al., 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 On July 22, 2026, Plaintiffs Wilford Dekeesee, Roberta Rust, Akemi Lee, and 18 Lajuanna Kane, proceeding pro se, filed this action against Defendants Property Owner 19 Salvation Army NGO, Salvation Army’s General Counsel Ayana Vasquez, Salvation 20 Army Oceanside Residences, Inc., Kimball, Tirey, Kimball, and John LLP, Individual 21 Property Managers, and Does 1–20. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1). Plaintiffs allege Civil 22 RICO, RICO conspiracy, Elder Abuse, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, 24 23 C.F.R. § 247, Wrongful Eviction, Fair Housing Act, and Unfair Business Practices claims. 24 (Id.). Plaintiffs concurrently filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, which is 25 currently pending before the Court. (Mot., ECF No. 2). For the following reasons, the 26 Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion and dismisses the action without prejudice. 27 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 28 Parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay a filing fee 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 Plaintiffs’ IFP Motion consists of an Application to Proceed in District Court 9 Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Form AO 240) under the name “Silvercrest Residents 10 Association” and signed by Wilford Dekeesee. (Mot. 1). However, Silvercrest Residents 11 Association is not a party to this action and artificial entities are not permitted to proceed 12 in forma pauperis. (See Compl. 1); Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 211 13 (1993). Furthermore, “where there are multiple plaintiffs in a single action, the plaintiffs 14 may not proceed in forma pauperis unless all of them demonstrate inability to pay the filing 15 fee.” Ellis-Sanders v. Guardian Piazza D’Oro LLC, No. 24-cv-00408-BAS-SBC, 2024 16 WL 4442012, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2024) (citation modified). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ 17 Motion is denied. 18 II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 19 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is 20 DENIED. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Within thirty days 21 of the issuance of this Order, Plaintiffs may each file an IFP motion or pay the $405 filing 22 fee. If Plaintiffs do neither, the Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. 23 24 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 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: August 24, 2026 2» 3 jn Yn « 44 4 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28