Alonso v. San Diego County Sheriff Department

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER K. ALONSO, Case No.: 3:22-cv-97-CAB-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERRIFF [Doc. No. 2] AND DENYING AS DEPARTMENT, 15 MOOT MOTION TO APPOINT Defendant. COUNSEL [Doc. No. 3] 16 17 On January 24, 2022, Plaintiff Christopher K. Alonso filed a complaint. [Doc. No. 18 1.] Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. No. 2] 19 and a motion to appoint counsel [Doc. No. 3]. On May 6, 2022, the case was transferred 20 to the undersigned judge. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP 21 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, the Court may authorize a party to proceed 24 without paying the filing fee if that party submits an affidavit demonstrating an inability to 25 pay. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where 26 it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” 27 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP 28 1 || status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” /d. (internal 2 || quotation marks omitted). 3 In his IFP application, Plaintiff claims to have no income, no cash, and no assets. 4 || Yet Plaintiff claims to have over $2,000/month in expenses, while also living rent-free. 5 || Moreover, the expenses include installment payments on a motor vehicle and motor vehicle 6 ||insurance, but no vehicle is listed as an asset. These unexplained discrepancies render the 7 || application incomplete and not credible. Accordingly, based on the lack of “particularity, 8 ||definiteness and certainty” in the information provided, the Court is not persuaded that 9 || Plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the filing fee and “still afford the necessities of life.” 10 || Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. Therefore, Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP [Doc. No. 11 is DENIED without prejudice, and Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel [Doc. No. 3] is 12 || DENIED as moot. 13 Plaintiff shall have until June 3, 2022 to either pay the filing fee, or file a new 14 || application to proceed IFP that provides with “particularity, definiteness, and certainty” the 15 ||required information. In particular, Plaintiff shall respond truthfully, accurately, and 16 ||completely to Questions 1 - 8. If the filing fee is not paid or a renewed application to 17 || proceed in forma pauperis is not filed by June 3, 2022, the Clerk of the Court shall dismiss 18 || the case without prejudice and terminate the action. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: May 6, 2022 € ZL 21 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28