Boutros v. Bush
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and found that her affidavit, which listed significant assets including $24,000 in savings and $1.7 million in real property, failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the $405 filing fee. The court denied the IFP motion and dismissed the action without prejudice, granting the plaintiff thirty days to pay the fee to reopen the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis denied“For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that a plaintiff must demonstrate an inability to pay court costs while still affording the necessities of life. The plaintiff's affidavit explicitly stated she owned real property worth $1.7 million and had $24,000 in savings. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a plaintiff with such significant assets is not indigent for the purpose of waiving a $405 filing fee. The court's finding that she is able to pay is supported by the record recited in the order. |
Action dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay filing fee“and DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to pay the $405 filing fee.” | agree with court Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), if a plaintiff is denied IFP status, the court must dismiss the action unless the plaintiff pays the fee. The court provided a thirty-day window to pay and reopen, which is a standard procedural mechanism to allow the plaintiff to cure the deficiency. The dismissal without prejudice is appropriate given the procedural nature of the failure (non-payment) rather than a substantive defect in the complaint. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and applies the relevant Ninth Circuit standard from Escobedo v. Applebees. The court's analysis is straightforward: the plaintiff's own affidavit lists assets (real property worth $1.7 million) that clearly exceed the threshold for indigency regarding a $405 fee. The dismissal without prejudice and the offer to reopen upon payment are consistent with standard federal practice for failure to pay filing fees.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZINIA E. BOUTROS, Case No.: 24cv442-JO-MSB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 JOE BIDEN, DONALD TRUMP, BARACK OBAMA, GEORGE W. 15 BUSH, BILL CLINTON, MINDA 16 MCALLISTER, TIM DAVIS, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Pro se Plaintiff Zinia E. Boutros (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against all U.S. 21 Presidents from the years 2000 to 2024 as well as Minda McAllister and Tim Davis 22 (“Defendants”). Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”). Additionally, she has requested to proceed in forma 23 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Dkt. 2 “(IFP Motion”). 24 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 25 Plaintiff has not prepaid the civil filing fee and instead requests to proceed IFP, 26 claiming an inability to pay. A plaintiff instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in 27 a federal district court must pay a filing fee of $405. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, a 28 district court may waive the filing fee by granting the plaintiff leave to proceed IFP. 28 1 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). To proceed IFP, a plaintiff must submit an affidavit that includes a 2 ||statement of all assets and demonstrates an inability to pay the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 3 || 1915(a); see also Local Civ. R. 3.2. An affidavit is “sufficient where it alleges that the 4 || [plaintiff] cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. 5 || Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). “The granting or 6 refusing of permission to proceed [IFP] is a matter committed to the sound discretion of 7 district court.” Skelly v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 2019 WL 6840398, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 8 || Dec. 16, 2019) (quoting Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965)). 9 Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she is unable to pay the filing fee. The affidavit 10 submitted in support of her IFP motion states that she has a monthly income of $3,400 11 monthly expenses of approximately $6,000. IFP Motion at 1-2, 6. Additionally, 12 || Plaintiff has $24,000 in a savings account and owns real property worth $1.7 million. /d. 13 2-3. Based on this information, the Court finds that Plaintiff is able to pay the required 14 || $405 civil filing fee. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. 15 I. CONCLUSION 16 For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in 17 forma pauperis and DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to pay the $405 18 || filing fee. If Plaintiff still wishes to proceed with this case, she must pay the required filing 19 || fee within thirty (30) days of this Order at which point the Court will reopen the case. 20 21 IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: April 5, 2024 — a 23 C7 24 Honorable Jinsook Ohta” 95 United States District Judge 26 27 28