Trenton v. Carmax, Inc
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil action against Carmax, Inc. The court denied the application without prejudice, finding the plaintiff's financial affidavit not credible due to internal inconsistencies regarding income and expenses, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file a renewed application by January 7, 2022.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied“Accordingly, Plaintiffs application to proceed IFP is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from *Escobedo v. Applebees*, which requires a plaintiff to allege poverty with particularity and demonstrate an inability to pay fees while still affording necessities of life. The court identified specific factual inconsistencies in the plaintiff's affidavit (claiming no income for 12 months while listing recent high monthly pay and current employment) and a lack of listed expenses. Denying the IFP application based on a lack of credibility and failure to meet the statutory showing is a proper exercise of the court's discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly cites the governing statute and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the requirements for IFP status. The court's reasoning is grounded in specific factual findings from the record (the plaintiff's affidavit and complaint), identifying clear contradictions that undermine the credibility of the poverty claim. The remedy (denial without prejudice with a deadline to pay or refile) is appropriate and standard.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH AMAZIAH TRENTON, Case No.: 21-CV-1993-CAB-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION 13 v. FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 CARMAX, INC. et al., [Doc. No. 2] 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 26, 2021, Plaintiff, a non-prisoner appearing pro se, filed a complaint 18 alleging that on September 14, 2021, Defendants refused to let Plaintiff leave after he 19 attempted to deliver an automobile to a Carmax location in Escondido, California. Plaintiff 20 did not pay the filing fee and instead applied to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). For 21 the following reasons, the application to proceed IFP is denied. 22 Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. See 23 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the court 24 may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit without payment of 25 fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, 26 showing that he or she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “An affidavit in support of an 27 IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and 28 still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 1 |}2015). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, 2 || definiteness and certainty.” /d. (internal quotation marks omitted). The granting or denial 3 leave to proceed IFP in civil cases is within the sound discretion of the district court. 4 || Venerable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted). 5 In his application, Plaintiff states that he currently has no income and has not had 6 ||any income for the past 12 months. Yet the application also lists gross monthly pay of 7 |{$3,000 and $8,000 from jobs Plaintiff held within the past two years, and the complaint 8 itself indicates that Plaintiff was employed on September 14, 2021, the date of the incident 9 || giving rise to his claim. Meanwhile, the application lists no debts or financial obligations, 10 stating only that Plaintiff's monthly expenses are $0 and that he lives with a parent. In 11 |/light of the foregoing, the Court finds the application not credible with respect to the 12 ||representation that Plaintiff has had no income over the past 12 months and that he 13 currently has no living expenses (either paid for by him or by someone else). 14 Based on the lack of credibility and the lack of “particularity, definiteness and 15 |/certainty” in the information provided, the court is not persuaded that Plaintiff lacks the 16 || funds to pay the filing fee and “still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 17 || 1234. Accordingly, Plaintiffs application to proceed IFP is DENIED without prejudice. 18 || Plaintiff shall have until January 7, 2022, to pay the entire filing fee or file a renewed 19 || application to proceed IFP that provides complete and accurate information concerning 20 || Plaintiff's income, assets, and expenses. Failure to pay the filing fee or file a renewed 21 application to proceed IFP will result in this case being closed without further order from 22 court. 23 It is SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: November 30, 2021 € Z 25 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 26 United States District Judge 27 28