Herta v. Roberts
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Maria Herta filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil action against Terrie E. Roberts. The court denied the motion without prejudice because the motion failed to provide the specific financial details required by Local Rules, and ordered Herta to either pay the filing fee or file a compliant motion by April 29, 2022.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis denied without prejudice“The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Local Rules (CivLR 3.2) which require specific financial disclosures for IFP motions. The order explicitly identifies the missing information (income, expenses, employment details) necessary to determine if the plaintiff meets the statutory standard of poverty. Denying without prejudice allows the plaintiff to cure the deficiency, which is a standard and appropriate procedural response to an incomplete IFP motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly cites the governing statute (via Adkins) and the specific local rule (CivLR 3.2) that mandates the missing financial details. The court clearly articulates why the motion fails (lack of specific income/expense data) and provides a clear path to cure the defect (pay fee or refile). There are no gaps in the reasoning for this specific procedural ruling.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MARIA HERTA, CASE NO. 22-cv-00156-LAB-RBB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 11 vs. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS WITHOUT PREJUDICE [Dkt. 2] 12 TERRIE E. ROBERTS, 13 Defendant.
14 15 Plaintiff Maria Herta filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Dkt. 16 2. Because the Motion gives an incomplete picture of Herta’s finances, it is DENIED 17 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 18 Motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) must establish that the 19 litigant “cannot because of [her] poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and still be able 20 to provide [her]self and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de 21 Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). Courts have discretion to grant or deny 22 such applications. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). In this 23 District, the Local Rules set forth specific requirements regarding the contents of an IFP 24 motion. See CivLR 3.2.1 25 The Motion doesn’t give the Court enough information to determine whether 26 1 The District Court’s website provides a form that would conform with the Local Rules (if 27 fully and accurately completed). It can be found at https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/ 28 _assets/pdf/forms/Motion%20to%20Proceed%20In%20Forma%20Pauperis.pdf 1 || requiring Herta to pay filing fees would make her unable to provide for herself and her 2 || dependent. She acknowledges she is self-employed and has a monthly income, but she 3 || doesn’t list any income, aside from $1,600 in monthly child support. She acknowledges 4 || she has expenses, but she doesn’t identify her average monthly expenses. She doesn't 5 || state the date of her last employment or the amount of her monthly pay from that 6 || employment. CivLR 3.2(a)(2). Without each of these pieces of information, she can’t carry 7 || her burden to demonstrate that she is unable to pay the filing fee. 8 The Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On or before April 29, 2022, 9 || Herta must either (1) pay the entire $400 statutory and administrative filing fee, or (2) file 10 || a new IFP motion resolving the issues the Court identified. If Herta does neither, her 11 |} complaint will be dismissed without prejudice and this case will be closed. 12 IT 1S SO ORDERED. 13 14 || Dated: March 16, 2022 A. 15 lang A Gum 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28