UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 4, 2013
JANET NAPOLITANO, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND PROVIDING LEAVE TO PAY FILING FEE AND SERVE COMPLAINT ON OR BEFORE APRIL 5, 2013 [DOC. NO. 2]
Plaintiff, a nonprisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a complaint pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, alleging that her "removal from the position of Special Agent with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement branch of the Department of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security" constituted discrimination based on disability and retaliation against her complaints of sexual harassment and her requests for reasonable accommodation for her disability. [Doc. No. 1.] Plaintiff has also submitted a Motion and Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [Doc. No. 2.]
Motion to Proceed IFP
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 plaintiff's failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).
Here, Plaintiff's affidavit of assets fails to sufficiently to show that she is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action. See S.D. Cal. Local R. 3.2(d). While Plaintiff was unemployed as of November 2012 and maintains a high dollar amount of debt, she expects to receive $1,000 in monthly rent income through March 2013, has the ability to obtain consulting jobs, maintains a checking account with a balance of approximately $5,000, owns at least one automobile (though she lists three), has approximately $200,000 of equity in her house, and owns a ring estimated to be $20,000 in value. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Conclusion and Order
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED. [Doc. No. 2.] If Plaintiff still wishes to continue to proceed with this matter, then the Court hereby grants Plaintiff leave to pay the required filing fees and to properly complete service of her complaint on or before April 5, 2013.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.