Watson v. City of Santee
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Andrew Watson moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil action against the City of Santee. The court denied the motion, finding that Watson's monthly income and expenses demonstrated he could afford the filing fees, and ordered the case closed unless the fees are paid within 90 days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied“Thus, Watson’s IFP motion is denied.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Escobedo v. Applebees, requiring a showing that the plaintiff cannot pay court costs and still afford necessities of life. The court calculated that Watson's monthly surplus ($603) covers the filing fee ($405), which is less than 12% of his monthly income. This is well below the 'outer boundary of stringency' (13% of total family income) cited in Escobedo. The court also distinguished the case from Escobedo by noting Watson's budget includes food, so paying the fee does not force him to forego necessities. The decision follows the cited law and the facts recited in the affidavits. |
Case Closed for Failure to Pay Filing Fee“The Clerk is directed to close this case for failure to pay the filing fee, but the Clerk will automatically reopen the case and issue summons if the filing fee is paid by March 13, 2024.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural consequence of denying an IFP motion when the plaintiff has not paid the fee. The court provided a 90-day window to pay, which is consistent with local rules and common practice for allowing pro se litigants a chance to cure the deficiency before dismissal/closure. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard from binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Escobedo). It applies the standard to the specific financial facts provided in the plaintiff's affidavits (income, expenses, surplus). It performs a clear calculation showing the fee is a small fraction of income and that the plaintiff has a monthly surplus sufficient to pay it. It distinguishes the key precedent (Escobedo) on the specific ground that the plaintiff's budget includes food, addressing the 'necessities of life' prong. The use of a recent, non-binding district court case (Berner) is appropriate as persuasive support but not necessary given the clear application of Escobedo.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Andrew WATSON, Case No.: 23-cv-1913-AGS-AHG 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 5 v. (ECF 2) AND CLOSING CASE 6 CITY OF SANTEE, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Plaintiff Andrew Watson requests to proceed without paying the filing fee. (See 10 ECF 2.) That request is denied. 11 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay 12 filing fees of $405.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). But if granted the right to proceed in forma 13 pauperis, a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fees. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 14 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient if it 15 alleges that “the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” 16 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). Although plaintiffs “need not 17 be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis statute,” they must still 18 “allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. 19 According to Watson’s sworn affidavits, he has limited assets: about $600 in cash, 20 plus a 1997 vehicle for which he declined to provide a valuation. (ECF 2, at 2–3.) But his 21 total monthly income is $3,398 (id.), which he uses to meet expenses of only $2,795 (id. 22 at 4), leaving a remainder of $603 every month. Watson’s discretionary income for just 23 one month easily covers the filing fees. And those fees amount to less than twelve percent 24 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay a $55 administrative 27 fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023). 28 1 || of his total monthly income. Cf Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 (reversing an IFP denial when 2 ||the $350 filing fee “represented roughly forty percent” of plaintiff's “monthly income 3 || before expenses” and, after expenses, plaintiff “would have had to dedicate the entirety of 4 ||two-months’ worth of her remaining funds, meaning that she would have to forego eating 5 during those sixty days, to save up to pay the filing fee”).” As a result, Watson does not 6 || qualify to proceed in forma pauperis. See Berner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV- 7 ||23-00677-PHX-JAT, 2023 WL 3246978, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2023) (denying IFP at 8% 8 total income); see also Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 (noting that denying IFP at 13% of 9 || total family income is the “outer boundary of stringency’). 10 Thus, Watson’s IFP motion is denied. The Court will provide him 90 days to pay the 11 || filing fees. The Clerk is directed to close this case for failure to pay the filing fee, but the 12 || Clerk will automatically reopen the case and issue summons if the filing fee is paid by 13 || March 13, 2024. 14 || Dated: December 14, 2023 15 | 16 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 ? Unlike Escobedo, Watson already included food in his monthly expenses, so there 28 is no concern that paying the fees will force him to starve. (See ECF 2, at 4 (budgeting a healthy $800 per month for food).)