Baize v. United States District Court, Southern District of California ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEBBIE BAIZE, Case No. 21-cv-01262-BAS-KSC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITH 12 PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S v. AMENDED IFP APPLICATION 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 14 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Debbie Baize filed this action on July 14, 2021 against the United States 18 District Court, Southern District of California. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)1 Plaintiff also 19 concurrently filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Motion”) and a 20 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) The Court denied the IFP Motion, finding 21 that Plaintiff had the ability to pay the filing fee based on her income (her disability income 22 of $2,141.00 and her deceased spouse’s disability income of the same amount) and 23 expenses. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff then filed an untitled document stating that her income 24 25 26 1 Here, Plaintiff here states vaguely that her case relates to her seven-year sentence in state prison for a wrongful conviction. The Court notes that Plaintiff has previously raised claims in several cases 27 stemming from her incarceration, which were dismissed with prejudice. See Debbie Baize v. Lloyd Burton Austin, Case No. 3:16-cv-01893-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016), Order Dismissing Action, ECF No. 28 1 || from disability is not $2,141.00 but is instead $1,141.00, which the Court construes as an 2 amended IFP application. (ECF No. 6.) 3 Even considering this lower amount, Plaintiff's disability income of $1,141.00, 4 |}combined with her spouse’s disability income of $2,141.00 (which Plaintiff has not 5 || corrected), still yields an income that sufficiently exceeds Plaintiff's expenses such that 6 ||she can pay the filing fee in this action. This is true even where the Court assumes her 7 ||spouse’s disability income also totals only $1,141.00—although Plaintiff does not make 8 || this clarification. 9 Accordingly, because Plaintiff's amended financial information does not indicate 10 || that requiring Plaintiff to pay the required $400 fee would impair her ability to obtain the 11 necessities of life, Adkins v. E.. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948), the 12 ||Court still finds that Plaintiff has the means to prepay the required filing fee without 13 ||sacrifice to any other expenses. The Court therefore DENIES WITH PREJUDICE 14 || Plaintiff’s amended IFP application. To proceed with this case, Plaintiff must pay the filing 15 || fee in full on or before August 9, 2021. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 / . 18 || DATED: July 26, 2021 Cyl q | Hiohea A 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28