Kimble v. Bergen et al

1
26-CV-1208 JLS (JLB)
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
JOLEE KIMBLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL BERGEN, JR., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 26-CV-1208 JLS (JLB)
ORDER:
(1) DENYING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT
WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR
COSTS, AND
(2) DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT
(ECF Nos. 1, 2).
Presently before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Jolee Kimble’s Complaint (“Compl.,”
ECF No. 1) and Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
(“IFP Appl.,” ECF No. 2). 	Having carefully considered Plaintiff’s Complaint and the
applicable law, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s IFP Application
and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:26-cv-01208-JLS-JLB Document 3 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-CV-1208 JLS (JLB)
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
IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the
United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405.1
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee
only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1).
Section 1915(a)(1) provides:
[A]ny 	court 	of 	the 	United 	States 	may 	authorize 	the
commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or
proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor,
by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of
all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay
such fees or give security therefor.
As § 1915(a)(1) does not itself define what constitutes insufficient assets to warrant
IFP status, the determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. 	See
Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Section 1915 typically
requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the
affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of indigency.”), reversed on other grounds
by, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where
it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.”
Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont
de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). “One need not be absolutely destitute to
obtain benefits of the [IFP] statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir.
1960). 	“Nevertheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some
particularity, definiteness[,] and certainty.’” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234.
1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff.
Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. Id.
Case 3:26-cv-01208-JLS-JLB Document 3 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-CV-1208 JLS (JLB)
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
In 	Plaintiff’s 	IFP 	Application, 	Plaintiff 	states 	that 	her 	monthly 	income 	is
$2,900.00—all from public assistance. IFP App. at 2. Plaintiff does not provide any details
regarding her monthly expenses, but states that she expects major changes in her assets or
liabilities during the next twelve months. 	See id. at 5. 	Plaintiff does not provide any
explanation for what major changes she expects in the next year—despite the form
directing her to do so. 	Id. (“If yes, describe on an attached sheet.”). 	She also provides
some information under the employer section, but the Court cannot discern what Plaintiff
wrote in that section. 	Id. at 2. 	Without more information, the Court cannot determine
whether granting Plaintiff’s IFP Application is warranted. 	Accordingly, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP Application.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court:
1. 	DENIES 	Plaintiff’s 	Application 	to 	Proceed 	in 	District 	Court 	Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2).
2. 	DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE
for failure to prepay the filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. §1914(a).
3. 	GRANTS Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days from the date on which this
Order 	is 	electronically 	docketed 	to 	either 	(1) 	pay 	the 	entire 	$402 	statutory 	and
administrative filing fee, or (2) file a new IFP Application alleging that they are unable to
pay the requisite fee. 	Should Plaintiff fail to either pay the filing fee or file a new IFP
Motion, the Court will convert this dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint into dismissal of
this civil action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 19, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01208-JLS-JLB Document 3 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3