Opinion
24-CV-1818 TWR (DDL)
10-11-2024
DEVON ALVIN PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, v. SGT. P. WHITE, BRYAN SISON (CV1269), CORPORAL N. HICKS, and CHULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 2)
Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Devon Alvin Phillips's Complaint for a Civil Case (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1) against Defendants Sergeant P. White, Officer Bryan Sison, Corporal N. Hicks, and the Chula Vista Police Department, as well as Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees of Costs (“IFP Mot.,” ECF No. 2). Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights when they arrested him on September 28, 2023, and detained him until he was released on October 1, 2023. (See generally Compl.) He seeks $750,000 in compensation for violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violation of his due process rights under California Penal Code section 849(a), and defamation of character. (See id. at 7.)
All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay filing and administration fees totaling $402. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A court may, however, in its discretion, allow a plaintiff to proceed without paying these fees if the plaintiff seeks leave to proceed IFP by submitting an affidavit demonstrating the fees impose financial hardship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (2015). Although the statute does not specify the qualifications for proceeding IFP, the plaintiff's affidavit must allege poverty with some particularity. Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. Granting a plaintiff leave to proceed IFP may be proper, for example, when the affidavit demonstrates that paying court costs will result in a plaintiff's inability to afford the “necessities of life.” Id. The affidavit, however, need not demonstrate that the plaintiff is destitute. Id.
In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $52. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2020)). The additional $52 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.
Here, Plaintiff's affidavit indicates that, although he was previously earning approximately $3,000 per month through an unknown date, he is currently unemployed. (See IFP Mot. at 1-2, 5.) Plaintiff does not inform the Court, however, whether he has any cash in bank accounts, (see id. at 2), or other assets. (See id. at 3.) Further, aside from $20 in monthly laundry and dry-cleaning costs, it is unclear what monthly expenses Plaintiff must pay, if any. (See id. at 4-5.) Because Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient information from which the Court can determine whether payment of the filing fee would result in his inability to afford the necessities of life, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's IFP Motion (ECF No. 2). See, e.g., Maleka-Ndandu v. Elite Sec. Staffing, No. 23-CV-1100-GPC-JLB, 2023 WL 4611829, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2023) (denying without prejudice IFP motion that was “incomplete and self-contradictory”). Should Plaintiff wish to proceed, within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order, he must either (1) prepay the entire $402 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (2) complete and file another IFP Motion that includes a fuller accounting of his assets and monthly income and expenses.
IT IS SO ORDERED.