Shelton v. United States Border Patrol
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff Jeff Shelton's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiff's ownership of two homes and cash reserves demonstrated an ability to pay the filing fee, and ordered Plaintiff to pay the fee by September 30, 2021, or face dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied“For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Escobedo v. Applebees, requiring a showing that the plaintiff cannot pay costs and still afford necessities of life. The record recited in the order (ownership of two homes worth $850,000 each and $10,000 in cash) objectively contradicts a claim of poverty sufficient to warrant IFP status. The denial follows logically from the facts presented in the affidavit. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on the correct Ninth Circuit precedent (Escobedo) for the IFP standard. The factual findings (assets and employment status) directly support the legal conclusion that the plaintiff is not indigent. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning provided for this specific motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 21-CV-1614-CAB-LL JEFF S. SHELTON, 11 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 12 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. 13 UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND [Doc. No. 2] 14 BORDER PATROL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Jeff Shelton’s motion to proceed in 19 forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Doc. No. 2.] Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in the 20 district court must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). However, the 21 Court may authorize a party to proceed without paying the fee if that party submits an 22 affidavit demonstrating an inability to pay. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in support 23 of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs 24 and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 25 Cir. 2015). “Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some 26 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 27 According to his affidavit, Plaintiff is employed by the United States Border Patrol, 28 although he was suspended for five days on May 9 – 13, 2021, and for another fourteen 1 || days on August 26 — September 8, 2021. [Doc. No. 1-2 at 1.] Plaintiff states that his gross 2 ||pay is $0 for a two-week period, presumably referring to the most recent fourteen-day 3 || period during which he was suspended, but does not state what his normal gross pay is 4 || while employed. [Doc. No. 2 at 1.] Plaintiff’s stated expenses total $6,780 per month. □□□□ 5 2.] Plaintiff also owns two homes worth $850,000.00 each and has $10,000.00 in cash. 6 || The owner of such valuable property, who is employed full-time and has $10,000.00 7 ||in cash in his possession, cannot be said to be living in poverty. Based on the information 8 || provided, the court is not persuaded that Plaintiff lacks the ability to pay the filing fee and 9 || “still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. 10 For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP on appeal is 11 ||}DENIED. Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee no later than September 30, 2021. If Plaintiff 12 || fails to pay the filing fee by the deadline, his case shall be dismissed and the Clerk of Court 13 close the case. 14 It is SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: September 16, 2021 € Z 16 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28