Watson v. City of Santee

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 14, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-01913
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Andrew WATSON, Case No.: 23-cv-1913-AGS-AHG 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 5 v. (ECF 2) AND CLOSING CASE 6 CITY OF SANTEE, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Plaintiff Andrew Watson requests to proceed without paying the filing fee. (See 10 ECF 2.) That request is denied. 11 Typically, parties instituting a civil action in a United States district court must pay 12 filing fees of $405.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). But if granted the right to proceed in forma 13 pauperis, a plaintiff can proceed without paying the fees. Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 14 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient if it 15 alleges that “the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” 16 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). Although plaintiffs “need not 17 be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis statute,” they must still 18 “allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. 19 According to Watson’s sworn affidavits, he has limited assets: about $600 in cash, 20 plus a 1997 vehicle for which he declined to provide a valuation. (ECF 2, at 2–3.) But his 21 total monthly income is $3,398 (id.), which he uses to meet expenses of only $2,795 (id. 22 at 4), leaving a remainder of $603 every month. Watson’s discretionary income for just 23 one month easily covers the filing fees. And those fees amount to less than twelve percent 24 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay a $55 administrative 27 fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023). 28 1 || of his total monthly income. Cf Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 (reversing an IFP denial when 2 ||the $350 filing fee “represented roughly forty percent” of plaintiff's “monthly income 3 || before expenses” and, after expenses, plaintiff “would have had to dedicate the entirety of 4 ||two-months’ worth of her remaining funds, meaning that she would have to forego eating 5 during those sixty days, to save up to pay the filing fee”).” As a result, Watson does not 6 || qualify to proceed in forma pauperis. See Berner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV- 7 ||23-00677-PHX-JAT, 2023 WL 3246978, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2023) (denying IFP at 8% 8 total income); see also Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 (noting that denying IFP at 13% of 9 || total family income is the “outer boundary of stringency’). 10 Thus, Watson’s IFP motion is denied. The Court will provide him 90 days to pay the 11 || filing fees. The Clerk is directed to close this case for failure to pay the filing fee, but the 12 || Clerk will automatically reopen the case and issue summons if the filing fee is paid by 13 || March 13, 2024. 14 || Dated: December 14, 2023 15 | 16 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

27 ? Unlike Escobedo, Watson already included food in his monthly expenses, so there 28 is no concern that paying the fees will force him to starve. (See ECF 2, at 4 (budgeting a healthy $800 per month for food).)