UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 8, 2011
MEL M. MARIN,
ESCONDIDO CARE, ET AL,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Anthony J. BattagliaU.S. District Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [Doc. Nos. 5 and 7]
On October 6, 2011, the Plaintiff, Mel M. Marin, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, refiled a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and Local Rule 3.2(a). The Court previously denied Plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis because his motion failed to state an inability to pay costs or give security with particularity, definiteness and certainty under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). On September 29, 2011, Plaintiff was granted 30 days leave to pay $350.00 filing fee required to maintain the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, or to submit additional documentation regarding economic status. On October 6, 2011, Plaintiff submitted additional documentation regarding his economic status and attached a copy of the Court's previous Order. On November 30, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a motion to submit additional information for IFP beyond the deadline set by the Court to do so and a motion to seal the declaration.
All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party's failure to pay only if the party is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).
In accordance with the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), and Civil Local Rule 3.2, Plaintiff has now submitted a declaration with specific facts of his inability to pay along with his Motion. In light of the information provided by Plaintiff's revised declaration, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis based upon the Plaintiff's Supplemental Points, [Doc. No. 5], and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion to Submit Additional Information for IFP and Motion to Seal Declaration, [Doc. No. 7].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.