From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McKinney v. Cent. Intellegence Agency

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Nov 10, 2021
No. 21-CV-1893-CAB-AGS (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021)

Opinion

21-CV-1893-CAB-AGS

11-10-2021

JONATHAN WILLIAM MCKINNEY, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[DOC. NO. 2]

Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Doc. No. 2.] Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in the district court must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). However, the Court may authorize a party to proceed without paying the fee if that party submits an affidavit demonstrating an inability to pay. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). “Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

According to his application, Plaintiff has a monthly income of $4,000, with monthly expenses of $3,750, and over $2,000 in a checking account. Based on the information 1 provided, the court is not persuaded that Plaintiff lacks the ability to pay the filing fee and “still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234.

For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP is DENIED. Plaintiff is also advised that the proper venue for this case appears to be the Central District of California, where Plaintiff resides, and not this district, which does not appear to have any connection to Plaintiff's claim. Absent additional allegations establishing proper venue in this district, the Court will transfer this case to the Central District if Plaintiff pays the filing fee here. Alternatively, Plaintiff may simply re-file his complaint in the Central District and pay the filing fee there. If Plaintiff chooses to pay the filing fee in this district, he must do so no later than December 3, 2021 . If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee by the deadline, the Clerk shall close the case without further order from the Court.

It is SO ORDERED. 2


Summaries of

McKinney v. Cent. Intellegence Agency

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Nov 10, 2021
No. 21-CV-1893-CAB-AGS (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021)
Case details for

McKinney v. Cent. Intellegence Agency

Case Details

Full title:JONATHAN WILLIAM MCKINNEY, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Nov 10, 2021

Citations

No. 21-CV-1893-CAB-AGS (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021)