Johnson v. City of Syracuse Department of Neighborhood & Business Development

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedNovember 19, 2024
Docket3:24-cv-01838
StatusUnknown

This text of Johnson v. City of Syracuse Department of Neighborhood & Business Development (Johnson v. City of Syracuse Department of Neighborhood & Business Development) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson v. City of Syracuse Department of Neighborhood & Business Development, (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Case No. 24-cv-1838-BAS-BJC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2) 14 CITY OF SYRACUSE DEPARTMENT

OF NEIGHBORHOOD & BUSINESS 15 DEVELOPMENT; ATEM FARMS, 16 Defendants. 17

18 On October 11, 2024, Plaintiff Robert W. Johnson, proceeding pro se, commenced 19 this action. (ECF No. 1.) The same day, Plaintiff also filed an application seeking leave 20 to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, also known as proceeding in forma pauperis 21 (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES WITHOUT 22 PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP. (Id.) 23 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 24 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an indigent litigant who is unable to pay the fees required 25 to commence a legal action may petition a court to proceed without making such 26 prepayment. The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. 27 Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that “Section 28 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining 1 whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of indigency”), rev’d on other 2 grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). 3 It is well-settled that a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma 4 pauperis. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). To 5 satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient 6 which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . 7 and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339 8 (citation omitted). At the same time, however, “the same even-handed care must be 9 employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, 10 . . . the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to 11 pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 12 District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP applications where the applicant can pay 13 the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses. See, e.g., Olivares v. Marshall, 14 59 F.3d 109, 111 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in 15 requiring a partial fee payment from a prisoner who had a $14.61 monthly salary and who 16 received $110 per month from family). The facts as to the affiant’s poverty must be stated 17 “with some particularity, definiteness[,] and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 18 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th 19 Cir. 1960)). 20 Having read and considered Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails 21 to meet the requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Regarding his income, all 22 fields are given a value of “$0.00,” and Plaintiff lists his total monthly income as “$0.00.” 23 (ECF No. 2 at 1–2.) Similarly, the physical assets and cash holdings sections are given 24 values of “$0.00,” and Plaintiff does not list any assets. (Id. at 2.) Under expenses, 25 likewise, all fields are listed as “$0.00,” although, from the documents attached to the 26 Complaint, Plaintiff appears to be CEO of a company. (Id.) 27 It is not apparent how Plaintiff is obtaining the necessities of life, and in turn whether 28 this source of funds–if it exists–can cover the required filing fee in this action. The Court 1 can draw no conclusions from the incomplete and self-contradictory IFP application. The 2 application does not indicate that requiring Plaintiff to pay the required $405 fee would 3 impair his ability to obtain the necessities of life. 4 Last, the Court notes Plaintiff filled out a “short form” IFP application, which 5 generally does not provide sufficient information for a court to grant an IFP application. 6 Therefore, Plaintiff may find attached the appropriate “long form” IFP application for his 7 use if he wishes to renew his application to proceed IFP. 8 II. Sua Sponte Sealing of Part of the Complaint 9 Plaintiff filed documents containing his social security number. (See ECF No. 1-2 10 at PageID.11.) The Southern District of California Electronic Case Filing Administrative 11 Policies and Procedures Manual requires parties to redact “social security numbers, the 12 names of minor children, dates of birth, [and] financial account numbers.” Section 1.h. 13 This Court’s standing order permits sealing of “only those documents, or portions thereof, 14 necessary to protect such sensitive [personal or confidential] information.” Standing Order 15 of the Hon. Cynthia Bashant for Civil Cases ¶ 5.A. As such, the Court seals the unredacted 16 version of the Complaint on the docket and orders Plaintiff to file a public version of the 17 Complaint that redacts his social security number. 18 III. Conclusion 19 In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP 20 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (ECF No. 2.) To proceed IFP, Plaintiff must file a new IFP 21 using the attached long form application by no later than December 19, 2024, with more 22 specific information regarding the aforementioned sources of income and monthly 23 expenses. If he no longer wishes to proceed IFP, Plaintiff must pay the filing fee by no 24 later than December 19, 2024. 25 Further, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a public version of his Complaint on 26 the docket no later than December 19, 2024. This public version must redact, or black 27 out, Plaintiff’s social security number located at the top of the page titled “City of Syracuse 28 Notice of Claim Supplemental Information.” Because Plaintiff’s Complaint contains 1 || personally identifiable information, the Clerk is directed to seal the unredacted version of 2 || Plaintiff's Complaint currently on the docket. (ECF No. 1.) 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 A 7 5 || DATED: November 19, 2024 Cypilliag (Aha 6 toied Sn District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AL

Page 1 of 5 AO 239 (Rev. 01/15) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the

Plaintiff/Petitioner ) v. ) Civil Action No.

Defendant/Respondent ) APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS (Long Form)

Affidavit in Support of the Application Instructions Iam a plaintiff or petitioner in this case and declare Complete all questions in this application and then sign it. that I am unable to pay the costs of these proceedings Do not leave any blanks: if the answer to a question is “0,” and that I am entitled to the relief requested. declare “none,” or “not applicable (N/A),” write that response.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Johnson v. City of Syracuse Department of Neighborhood & Business Development, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-city-of-syracuse-department-of-neighborhood-business-casd-2024.