Kelly v. Zuckerberg
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Dolores Kelly filed a complaint, an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), and a motion for counsel. The court denied the IFP application without prejudice because the affidavit failed to provide specific details on income and expenses, and denied the motion for counsel as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied Without Prejudice“Therefore, Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP [Doc. Nos. 2] is DENIED without prejudice” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Escobedo v. Applebees, requiring a plaintiff to allege poverty with particularity. The order recites that the plaintiff failed to answer specific questions regarding income, assets, and expenses, which is a factual basis sufficient to deny the application without prejudice. The denial without prejudice allows the plaintiff to cure the deficiency, which is the standard procedural remedy for an insufficient IFP affidavit. |
Motion for Counsel Denied as Moot“and Plaintiff's motion for counsel [Doc. No. 3] is DENIED as moot.” | agree with court The court denied the motion for counsel as moot. While the order does not explicitly state the legal basis for this (e.g., that counsel is not appointed in civil cases or that IFP status is a prerequisite), denying a motion for counsel as moot when the underlying case is not proceeding due to lack of IFP status or fee payment is a defensible procedural step. The court is effectively pausing the case until the fee/IFP issue is resolved. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory and case law requirements for IFP status. It applies those requirements to the specific deficiencies in the plaintiff's affidavit (failure to answer questions 1-8). It provides a clear deadline and consequence for failure to comply. The reliance on Escobedo is appropriate for the Ninth Circuit.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Dolores Kelly, Case No.: 22cv430-CAB-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 Mark Zuckerberg, et al, [Doc. No. 2] AND DENYING AS 15 Defendant. MOOT MOTION FOR COUNSEL [Doc. No. 3] 16 17 On April 1, 2022, Plaintiff Dolores Kelly filed a complaint. [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff 18 also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. No. 2] and a motion 19 for counsel [Doc. No. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s application is DENIED. 20 Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. 21 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). But the court may authorize a party to proceed 22 without paying the fee if that party submits an affidavit demonstrating an inability to pay. 23 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it 24 alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” 25 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP 26 status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. 27 (internal quotation marks omitted). 28 1 In the IFP application, Plaintiff fails to answer any of the questions regarding 2 || whether she has any income or assets of any kind. [Doc. No. 2, Questions 1-7.] She 3 ||merely states that in 2016 she was self-employed. Plaintiff also fails to respond to the 4 || question about her monthly expenses. [Doc. No. 2, Question 8.] It is simply not credible 5 assume that Plaintiff has no income and no expenses. 6 Based on the lack of “particularity, definiteness and certainty” in the information 7 || provided, the court is not persuaded that Plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the filing fee and 8 || “still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. Therefore, Plaintiff’s 9 || application to proceed IFP [Doc. Nos. 2] is DENIED without prejudice, and Plaintiff's 10 || motion for counsel [Doc. No. 3] is DENIED as moot. 11 Plaintiff shall have until April 29, 2022 to either pay the filing fee, or file a new 12 || application to proceed IFP that provides with “particularity, definiteness, and certainty” 13 required information. In particular, Plaintiff shall respond truthfully to Questions 1 - 14 ||8. If the filing fee is not paid or a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis is not 15 || filed by April 29, 2022, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss the case without prejudice 16 || and terminate the action. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: April 4, 2022 € Z 19 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28