Nicholas B. Quiroz v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 12, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-03559
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICHOLAS B. QUIROZ, Case No. 1:26-cv-03559-KES-HBK 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS1 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF (Doc. 2) FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION 15 (CAL FIRE), et al., FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 16 Defendants. 17 18 On May 8, 2026, Plaintiff Nicholas B. Quiroz, proceeding pro se, filed the Complaint in 19 this action. (Doc. 1). On the same date, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 20 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. 2). 21 Except for habeas corpus actions, all parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding 22 in a district court of the United States must pay a filing fee of $350.00 and additional 23 administrative fee of $55.00 for a total filing fee of $405.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), (c). A 24 civil action may proceed despite a plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is 25 granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Proceeding in forma 26 pauperis is “a matter of privilege and not right.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 28 (E.D. Cal. 2026). 1 Cir. 1984) (abrogated on different grounds). While in forma pauperis applicants need not be 2 “destitute,” a showing of indigence is required. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 3 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948). A plaintiff must allege indigence “with some particularity, definiteness 4 and certainty” before in forma pauperis status can be granted. United States v. McQuade, 647 5 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). Courts are required “to assure that federal funds are not 6 squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a 7 suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. 8 Ellerthorpe, 586 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984). 9 In his application, Plaintiff declares a monthly income of $5,250 for himself and a 10 monthly income of $2,650 for his spouse, for a total of $7,900 in household monthly income. 11 (Doc. 2 at 1-2); see Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1236 (9th Cir. 2015) (court may 12 consider a plaintiff’s spouse’s financial resources in determining whether applicant is entitled to 13 in forma pauperis status). Plaintiff reports he and his spouse have a total of $690 in checking 14 accounts, a motor vehicle valued at $22,000, and another vehicle valued at $39,000. (Id. at 2-3). 15 Plaintiff and his spouse’s stated monthly expenses include $1,650 in rent/mortgage payments, 16 $381 in utilities, $75 in home maintenance, $800 in food, $200 in clothing, $40 in laundry and 17 dry-cleaning, $150 in medical and dental expenses, $240 in transportation, $60 in recreation, $65 18 in life insurance, $145 in motor vehicle insurance, $764 in motor vehicle installment payments, 19 $355 in credit card payments, $100 in Best Buy installment payments, $75 in “PG&E True-UP” 20 installment payments, and $600 in regular expenses for operation of business, profession, or farm, 21 with expenses totaling approximately $5,700 per month. (Id. at 4-5). Plaintiff lists his eleven- 22 year-old daughter and eight-year-old son as dependents who rely on him and his spouse for 23 support. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff does not expect any major changes to their monthly income or 24 expenses or in their assets or liabilities during the next 12 months. (Id. at 5). 25 In assessing whether a certain income level meets the poverty threshold under 26 §1915(a)(1), courts look at the federal poverty guidelines developed each year by the Department 27 of Health and Human Services. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human 28 Services, the 2026 federal poverty guideline for a four-person household in the contiguous United 1 States is $33,000 annually. See 2026 HHS Poverty Guidelines, https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty- 2 guidelines (last visited May 12, 2026). 3 Here, Plaintiff and his spouse’s annual income of $94,000 is nearly three times that 4 threshold, and, after expenses, they are left with approximately $2,200 per month in expendable 5 income. Courts in this district have denied in forma pauperis status to similarly situated 6 plaintiffs. See, e.g., Bibb v. City of Copperas Cove, Texas, 2026 WL 824395, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 7 Mar. 25, 2026) (recommending denial of in forma pauperis status where “Plaintiff’s gross 8 household income is triple 2026 poverty guidelines” and “Plaintiff’s income-to-expense ratio 9 leaves him, on average, with approximately $249 per month in expendable income”); Robinson v. 10 Carmax Auto Fin., LLC, No. 2:24-CV-2795-DJC-CSK, 2025 WL 1343369, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 11 8, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:24-CV-2795-DJC-CSK, 2025 WL 1684122 12 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2025) (recommending denial of in forma pauperis status where “Plaintiff’s 13 gross household income is close to double the 2025 poverty guideline” and “Plaintiff’s gross 14 income-to-expense ratio leaves him, on average, with approximately $2,200 per month in 15 expendable income”); Brittany v. DOCO Westfield Mall, 405 K St, 2025 WL 1294197, at *2 16 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2025) (denying in forma pauperis status where plaintiff “reports income of 17 over $7,500 per month in wages alone”). Moreover, courts have consistently held that in forma 18 pauperis status should not be granted where an applicant can pay the filing fee with acceptable 19 sacrifice to other expenses. See Alvarez v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 6265021, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 20 2018). The undersigned finds Plaintiff’s affidavit does not demonstrate that paying the $405 21 filing fee would deprive him of life’s necessities. See Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234; see also Kaur 22 v.Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2022 WL 1023975, at *2 (Apr. 1, 2022), (recommending denial of in 23 forma pauperis application and noting “courts in this district have denied applications to proceed 24 IFP, even where the budget ‘appear[s] tight,’ if the itemized expenses reflect at least some extent 25 of discretionary spending beyond strict necessity.”) (collecting cases). 26 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: 27 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be DENIED. 28 2. Plaintiff be directed to pay the $405 filing fee in full, and that if he fails to do so, the ] Court dismiss this action without prejudice. 2 NOTICE TO PARTIES 3 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days after 5 | being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 6 || objections with the Court. /d.; Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, 7 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen 8 | (15) pages. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party 9 | wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its 10 | CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with 11 | specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by 12 | the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 13 | 636(b)(1)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the 14 | waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 15 | These Findings and Recommendations are not an order that is immediately appealable to the 16 | Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of 17 | Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 18 Dated: _ May 12,2026 Wiha. Mh. Bareh Zaskth 20 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28