McKinney v. Central Intellegence Agency
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and denied it based on his reported income and assets. The court also advised that the case likely belongs in the Central District of California and set a deadline to pay the filing fee or face dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied“For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP is DENIED.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard from the Ninth Circuit, requiring a showing that the plaintiff cannot pay court costs and still afford the necessities of life. The court cited specific financial figures from the plaintiff's affidavit ($4,000 monthly income, $3,750 expenses, >$2,000 in checking) to support the conclusion that the plaintiff has the ability to pay the filing fee. This is a discretionary determination based on the face of the affidavit, and the court's reasoning is consistent with the cited authority. |
Advisory on Venue and Transfer/Dismissal“Absent additional allegations establishing proper venue in this district, the Court will transfer this case to the Central District if Plaintiff pays filing fee here... If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee by the deadline, the Clerk shall close the case without further order from the Court.” | agree with court The court correctly identifies that venue likely lies in the Central District where the plaintiff resides. It provides a procedural path forward: pay the fee here and face a transfer, or re-file in the correct district. It sets a specific deadline for payment and instructs the Clerk to close the case if the fee is not paid, which is a standard administrative procedure for cases where the IFP motion is denied and the fee is not subsequently paid. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the motion. It cites the correct statutory and case law authorities for the IFP standard. It applies the facts from the plaintiff's own affidavit to the legal standard to reach a logical conclusion. It also proactively addresses the venue issue and provides clear instructions for the next steps, including a deadline and the consequence of inaction. There are no significant gaps or questionable reasoning.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 21-CV-1893-CAB-AGS JONATHAN WILLIAM MCKINNEY, 11 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 12 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. 13 CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, [Doc. No. 2] 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 18 This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”). [Doc. No. 2.] Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in the district 20 court must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). However, the Court 21 may authorize a party to proceed without paying the fee if that party submits an affidavit 22 demonstrating an inability to pay. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in support of an IFP 23 application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still 24 afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). 25 “Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, 26 definiteness and certainty.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 27 According to his application, Plaintiff has a monthly income of $4,000, with monthly 28 expenses of $3,750, and over $2,000 in a checking account. Based on the information 1 || provided, the court is not persuaded that Plaintiff lacks the ability to pay the filing fee and 2 || “still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. 3 For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP is DENIED. 4 || Plaintiff is also advised that the proper venue for this case appears to be the Central District 5 || of California, where Plaintiff resides, and not this district, which does not appear to have 6 connection to Plaintiffs claim. Absent additional allegations establishing proper 7 || venue in this district, the Court will transfer this case to the Central District if Plaintiff pays 8 filing fee here. Alternatively, Plaintiff may simply re-file his complaint in the Central 9 || District and pay the filing fee there. If Plaintiff chooses to pay the filing fee in this district, 10 || he must do so no later than December 3, 2021. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee by the 11 || deadline, the Clerk shall close the case without further order from the Court. 12 Itis SO ORDERED. 13 ||Dated: November 10, 2021 € 14 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28