Woodrow

Woodrow v. Kurtz

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaAugust 4, 20213:21-cv-01236California305 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 JAMES WOODROW, Case No.: 3:21-cv-1236-L-KSC

Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE

12 JOHN KURTZ, et al., TO PROCEED IN FORMA Defendants. PAUPERIS (ECF 2) 14 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the IFP motion. Every party instituting a 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. 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 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff receives $1,064 per month from government programs. (ECF 2). He has no other income. Id. His expenses each month are about $1,060. Id. But he has $4,500 in a savings…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.