Ashford v. Google, Inc

District Court, S.D. California·Decided April 29, 2025·No. 3:25-cv-00327·Unknown

Opinion

BURK N. ASHFORD, Case No.: 25-cv-0327-BJC-AHG Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION v. TO TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [ECF NO. 7] GOOGLE, et al, Defendants. On February 12, 2025, Plaintiff Burk N. Ashford filed a Petition for Preliminary Injunction alleging Defendants Google and Yahoo have locked him out of his personal email accounts, and he seeks “unfettered access to his email accounts from wherever he may be.” [ECF No. 1.] Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) which the Court denied on February 19, 2025. [ECF Nos. 3, 4.] Plaintiff has filed a Renewed Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [ECF No. 7.] For the reasons stated below, his motion is Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this court must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Civ.L.R. 4.5(a). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the court may authorize the commencement, prosecution, or defense of any suit without payment | ||of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing that he or she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “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). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” /d. (internal quotation marks omitted). The granting or denial of leave to proceed IFP in civil cases is within the sound discretion of the district court. Venerable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted). In his application, Plaintiff states that he receives $1,310 in monthly income from }/‘“Pension, annuity, or life insurance payments.” [ECF No. 7 at 4.] Plaintiff states his /monthly expenses include $600 rent, $35 telephone, and that his utilities and medical co- pays vary. [/d. at 5.] Plaintiff states he has $97.39 in his Chase account. [/d. at 7.] Although he does not provide an accurate accounting of his monthly expenses, Plaintiff's income and bank account indicate that he does not have funds to pay the filing fee and still “afford necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’?s IFP Motion [ECF No. 7.] Dated: April 29, 2025 6 oq Gan CG Lh fu Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ashford v. Google, Inc, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Ashford v. Google, Inc (Ashford v. Google, Inc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Maria Escobedo v. Apple American Group
787 F.3d 1226 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)