James Keefer v. U.S. Bank National Association
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for leave to electronically file documents. The court granted the motion for leave to electronically file and denied the IFP motion without prejudice due to insufficient detail in the affidavit, ordering the plaintiff to pay the fee or refile by October 2, 2026, or face dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied Without Prejudice“Therefore, Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the requirement that an IFP affidavit must show inability to pay with particularity. The order recites that the plaintiff failed to specify wage amounts or the amount of SSI received, which prevents the court from determining if he can afford necessities of life. Denying without prejudice and providing a deadline to refile is a standard and appropriate procedural remedy for a deficient affidavit. |
Motion for Leave to Electronically File Documents Granted“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to electronically file documents.” | agree with court The court granted the motion based on the plaintiff's representation that he has the means to file electronically and agrees to follow the CM/ECF policies. This is a routine administrative ruling consistent with local rules and the plaintiff's stated capabilities. |
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 specifically cites the deficiency in the plaintiff's affidavit (lack of specific income details) and applies the 'particularity' requirement from Escobedo. The remedy (denial without prejudice with a deadline to refile) is appropriate. The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES KEEFER, Case No.: 26-cv-4383-RSH-VET 12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; (2) GRANTING 14 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 15 Defendant. ELECTRONICALLY FILE 16 [ECF Nos. 2, 3] 17 18 Before the Court are two motions filed by the Plaintiff: (1) his motion to proceed in 19 forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2; and (2) his motion for leave to electronically file 20 documents, ECF No. 3. While the Court grants the latter motion, ECF No. 3, the Court 21 denies Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 23 Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. See 24 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Civ. L.R. 4.5(a). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the court may 25 authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit without payment of fees 26 if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing 27 that he or she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “An affidavit in support of an IFP 28 application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still 1 afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F. 3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). 2 “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness, 3 and certainty.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “The granting or denial of leave to 4 proceed in forma pauperis in civil cases is within the sound discretion of the district court.” 5 Venerable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974). 6 In the IFP application, Plaintiff did not answer the question regarding the amount of 7 wages or gross pay he receives, if any. If Plaintiff does not receive any wages, he must say 8 so. Additionally, Plaintiff’s application says that he receives “SSI,” but does not state the 9 amount he receives. Based on the lack of “particularity, definiteness and certainty” in the 10 information provided, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff lacks the funds to pay 11 the filing fee and “still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. 12 Therefore, Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is DENIED without prejudice. See ECF 13 No. 2. 14 Plaintiff shall have until October 2, 2026, to either pay the filing fee, or file a new 15 application by completing the long form application, Form AO 239, which is available on 16 the Southern District of California website, rather than the short form he previously 17 submitted. If the filing fee is not paid or a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis 18 is not filed by October 2, 2026, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss the case without 19 prejudice and terminate the action. 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 |}. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE DOCUMENTS 2 In light of pro se Plaintiff's representations that he agrees to follow all Rules and 3 Policies in the CM/ECF Policies and Procedures Manual, and that he has the means 4 || to electronically file documents in compliance with Section 2(b) of that manual, the Court 5 || GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to electronically file documents. See ECF No. 3. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 2, 2026 JDhut ¢ [oc 9 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28