Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied without prejudice Marcelina Pina’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because the application contained inconsistencies and insufficient detail regarding her income and expenses. The court also dismissed her complaint without prejudice for failure to prepay the filing fee, granting her 30 days to pay the fee or submit a corrected application.
Holdings
- Plaintiff failed to allege with sufficient certainty that she could not pay the filing fee while affording the necessities of life, so the IFP application was properly denied without prejudice.
- Because Plaintiff was not granted IFP status and did not prepay the required filing fee, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated indigency to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
- Whether the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prepay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (6)
- Cal. Men's Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), reversed on other grounds by 506 U.S. 194 (1993)(followed)
- Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
- Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)(followed)
- Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)(followed)
- Turner v. City of San Diego, No. 23-CV-29 TWR (NLS), 2023 WL 163492, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023)(followed)
- Herta v. Wiblemo, No. 22-CV-1679-BAS-BGS, 2022 WL 17573923, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2022)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…