Cromwell, Jr v. Experian Information Solutions Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff Valorus Hyatt Cromwell, Jr.'s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil action against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff's reported income was insufficient to demonstrate an inability to pay the filing fee while still affording the necessities of life, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the fee within 23 days or face dismissal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied“In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2] is DENIED.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard from the Ninth Circuit, requiring the plaintiff to show an inability to pay fees while still affording necessities of life. The court relied on the specific financial figures provided in the plaintiff's affidavit ($5,000 gross monthly wages, $4,000 take-home pay, no dependents). Given that the filing fee for a civil action is $405 (plus a $38 administrative fee, totaling $443), a take-home income of $4,000 per month is generally sufficient to cover this cost without compromising basic necessities. The court's exercise of discretion to deny IFP status based on these facts is consistent with the law and the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory basis for the motion and the applicable Ninth Circuit standard for determining IFP eligibility. It explicitly recites the financial facts from the plaintiff's affidavit and applies the 'necessities of life' test to those facts. The conclusion that a $4,000 monthly take-home income does not support a claim of inability to pay a ~$443 filing fee is logically sound and consistent with the cited authority. The order is complete and procedurally correct.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 VALORUS HYATT CROMWELL, JR., Case No.: 23-CV-1407-CAB-WVG 14 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 15 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 16 EXPERIEAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. et al., [Doc. No. 2] 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaintiff Valorus Hyatt Cromwell, Jr. filed the complaint in this action on August 2, 21 2023. [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff did not prepay the filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) 22 at the time of filing; instead, he filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [Doc. No. 2]. 24 Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. See 25 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may 26 authorize the commencement, prosecution, or defense of any suit without payment of fees 27 if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing 28 that he or she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “An affidavit in support of an IFP 1 || application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still 2 || afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). 3 || plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness, 4 ||and certainty.” /d. (internal quotations omitted). The granting or denial of leave to proceed 5 || IFP in civil cases is within the sound discretion of the district court. Venerable v. Meyers, 6 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted). 7 According to his application, Plaintiff’s gross wages are $5,000 per month, his take 8 || home pay is $4,000 per month, and Plaintiff has no dependents. Based on the information 9 || provided, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the filing fee and 10 || “still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. 11 In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2] is 12 DENIED. Plaintiff must pay the filing fee no later than August 25, 2023 or his complaint 13 || will be dismissed without prejudice. 14 It is SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: August 2, 2023 € Z 16 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28