Perez v. Mountain Empire Unified School District
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Thomas J. Whelan (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Valerie Perez, acting on behalf of her minor child, filed a petition for approval of a settlement and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The court granted the motion to proceed IFP, finding that Petitioner met the statutory requirements for indigency.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) granted“For the reasons addressed above, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed IFP [Doc. 2].” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, noting that a party need not be completely destitute but must show an inability to pay costs without sacrificing necessities of life. The court reviewed the specific facts provided in the declaration (no income due to medical leave, low prior income, no savings, one asset, and high monthly expenses relative to income) and correctly concluded that Petitioner met the threshold for indigency. The decision follows logically from the cited authorities and the recited record. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the relevant legal standards for IFP status, citing binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. It applies these standards to the specific facts recited in the Petitioner's declaration (income, assets, expenses, dependents). The reasoning is concise but sufficient to support the conclusion that the Petitioner is indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. There are no apparent gaps in the legal analysis or factual application.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 VALERIE PEREZ, PARENT ON Case No.: 19-CV-1629 W (MDD) BEHALF OF S.G., A MINOR, 14 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Petitioner, 15 PROCEED IFP [DOC. 2] v. 16 MOUNTAIN EMPIRE UNIFIED 17 SCHOOL DISTRICT, 18 Respondent. 19 20 On August 28, 2019, Petitioner Valerie Perez, parent on behalf of minor S.G., filed 21 a Petitioner for Approval of Settlement and Compromise of Minor’s Claims. Along with 22 the Petition, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. 2]. 23 24 I. DISCUSSION 25 The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. 26 California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), reversed on 27 other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court 28 1 to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the 2 statute’s requirement of indigency.”). 3 It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma 4 pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). To 5 satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient 6 which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs ... and 7 still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339. 8 At the same time, however, “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that 9 federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, ... the remonstrances of 10 a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple 11 v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 12 District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant can 13 pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., Stehouwer v. 14 Hennessey, 851 F.Supp. 316, (N.D.Cal. 1994), vacated in part on other grounds, 15 Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that district court did not 16 abuse discretion in requiring partial fee payment from prisoner with $14.61 monthly 17 salary and $110 per month from family); Allen v. Kelly, 1995 WL 396860 at *2 (N.D. 18 Cal. 1995) (Plaintiff initially permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, later required to pay 19 $120 filing fee out of $900 settlement proceeds); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F.Supp. 129, 130 20 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (in forma pauperis application denied: “plaintiff possessed savings of 21 $450 and the magistrate correctly determined that this amount was more than sufficient to 22 allow the plaintiff to pay the filing fee in this action.”). Moreover, the facts as to the 23 affiant’s poverty must be stated “with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” 24 United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). 25 Having read and considered the papers submitted, the Court finds that based on the 26 current record, Petitioner meets the requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 27 According to her declaration, as a result of being diagnosed with MS, Petitioner has been 28 on medical leave since approximately July 2019 and, therefore, does not have any 1 |j/income. (/FP App. [Doc. 2] F§ 1, 2, 9.) Before her diagnosis, Petitioner earned a gross 2 ||monthly income of $539. (/d. 42.) Petitioner’s sole asset is a 2002 Daewoo automobile. 3 45.) Petitioner also does not have any savings. (/d. § 4.) In contrast, Petitioner’s 4 ||monthly expenses total approximately $1,843, and she has three dependent children. (/d. 5 ||9§ 7, 8.) Therefore, Petitioner’s IFP motion will be granted. 6 7 CONCLUSION & ORDER 8 For the reasons addressed above, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to 9 || proceed IFP [Doc. 2]. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ||Dated: September 3, 2019 \ I pe lnLor 13 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28