Moore et al v. Experian Information Solutions Inc. et al

1
25-cv-03529-DMS-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DEMETRIUS JEROME MOORE;
LACOLE REGINA MOORE;
Plaintiffs,
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS INC.; TRANS UNION
L.L.C.; EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES L.L.C.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-cv-03529-DMS-SBC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
[ECF No. 2]
Plaintiffs Demetrius Jerome Moore and Lacole Regina Moore, proceeding pro se,
filed a Complaint against Defendants Experian Information Solutions Inc., Trans Union
L.L.C., and Equifax Information Services L.L.C. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs did not pay the
filing fee. (Id.). Plaintiff Lacole Regina Moore filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”), (Mot., ECF No. 2). The Court denies the motion to proceed IFP without
prejudice.
Generally, parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court
must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s
failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant
Case 3:25-cv-03529-DMS-SBC Document 3 Filed 02/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25-cv-03529-DMS-SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Ellis-Sanders v. Guardian Piazza D’Oro LLC, No. 24-CV-00408,
2024 WL 4442012, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2024) (citations omitted). Any action sought
to be filed IFP “must be accompanied by an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets
which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915; S.D. Cal.
Civ. R. 3.2. “Where there are multiple plaintiffs in a single action, the plaintiffs may not
proceed in forma pauperis unless all of them demonstrate inability to pay the filing fee.”
Ellis-Sanders, 2024 WL 4442012, at *1 (citations omitted); see also Anderson v. State, No.
10 CV 2216, 2010 WL 4316996, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2010) (“[A]lthough only one
filing fee needs to be paid per case, if multiple plaintiffs seek to proceed in forma pauperis,
each plaintiff must qualify for IFP status.”).
There are two Plaintiffs in this case. (Compl. 1.) However, only one motion to
proceed IFP, signed by Plaintiff Lacole Regina Moore, was submitted. (Mot. 2.) For
Plaintiffs to collectively proceed IFP, Plaintiff Demetrius Jerome Moore must also submit
an IFP application. See Jackson v. Wahl, No. 24-CV-1945, 2024 WL 4983156, at *1 (S.D.
Cal. Dec. 4, 2024). Otherwise, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiffs are entitled
to proceed IFP.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff Lacole Regina
Moore’s motion to proceed IFP. If Plaintiffs wish to proceed in this case, Plaintiffs must,
on or before March 17, 2026, either (1) pay the filing fee or (2) each file a motion to
proceed IFP. The Court cautions Plaintiffs that failure to pay the filing fee or submit
complete IFP applications by the deadline will result in dismissal of this action.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 24, 2026
_________________________________
Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
United States District Judge
1 The Court declines, at this time, to screen Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Case 3:25-cv-03529-DMS-SBC Document 3 Filed 02/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2