Ndizeye v. Caietti

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 7, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00882
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Daniel NDIZEYE, Case No.: 24-cv-0882-AGS-BLM

4 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 5 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. (ECF 2) 6

7 Judge Carolyn CAIETTI, 8 Defendant. 9

10 Plaintiff Daniel Ndizeye, suing for alleged civil-rights violations under 42 U.S.C. 11 § 1983, moves to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons below, that motion is denied. 12 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay 13 filing fees of $405.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). But if granted the right to proceed in forma 14 pauperis, a plaintiff need not pay those fees. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 15 (9th Cir. 1999). An application for IFP status is sufficient if it indicates “that the affiant 16 cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 17 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). Yet an IFP application must “allege poverty with 18 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. (cleaned up). 19 Ndizeye states that his income—from all sources—is zero dollars, and that he has 20 zero dollars in cash. (ECF 2, at 1–2.) Yet he claims his mother and father rely on him for 21 support. (Id. at 4.) He owns no vehicle, pays zero dollars for housing or food, and has no 22 monthly expenses. (Id. at 4–5.) But somehow he has spent, or plans to spend, $1,000 “in 23 conjunction with this lawsuit.” (Id. at 5.) His sole explanation for these incongruous 24

25 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 26 administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, 27 District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023). The $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed without prepayment. Id. 28 | assertions is that he is “a college student” whose “financial resources are limited and 2 strictly allocated for educational expenses.” (/d.) Thus, he is “unable to allocate funds for 3 matters... such as legal proceedings.” (/d.) While an income of zero dollars—even against 4 monthly expenses—would generally qualify for IFP status, this filing does not allege 5 || Ndizeye’s poverty with the required “particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Without 6 ||more explanation, this Court “is left with questions that could go to the accuracy and 7 ||completeness of the affidavit.” See Peter J. v. Kijakazi, No. 23-cv-02240-JLB, 2023 WL 8 1/9111249, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2023) (denying IFP motion “devoid of any information 9 || about the resources” with which movant “supports himself’); see also Spitters v. Micelli, 10 || No. 21-CV-05138-TSH, 2021 WL 11586325, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2021) (same). 11 Because Ndizeye’s application stumbles at the outset, the Court does not reach the next 12 || step of screening his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 13 Accordingly, the IFP motion is DENIED without prejudice. By June 28, 2024, 14 || Ndizeye must either (1) file a renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis that 15 || addresses the identified deficiencies or (2) pay the requisite filing fee. If Ndizeye has done 16 ||neither by that date, the Clerk is directed to close this case. 17 Dated: June 7, 2024 18 = f. 19 Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 a me