Hill v. United States of America et al

1
26-cv-0494-AGS-BLM
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
Roland HILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 26-cv-0494-AGS-BLM
ORDER DENYING
RECONSIDERATION (ECF 6)
Plaintiff Roland Hill seeks reconsideration of this Court’s ruling on his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, that is, without paying the usual $405 in court fees. This Court
initially denied that request because Hill had already paid those fees. (See ECF 1; ECF 3;
ECF 5.) Even setting aside the high standard for reconsideration motions, Hill doesn’t
qualify for a waiver of the fee-payment requirement. See Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of
Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that reconsideration is an “extraordinary
remedy”).
“[A] party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP [in forma pauperis].”
See Blount v. Saul, No. 21-cv-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21,
2021). But “a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some particularity,
definiteness, and certainty.’” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015).
“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.” Id.
Hill has a combined income of $2,100 per month from retirement accounts and
“other” sources. (See ECF 3, at 1–2.) He claims he has approximately $8,000 in bank
accounts and no other assets. (See id. at 2–3.) Including his necessities, such as food and
housing, Hill asserts he has “$1,381” in monthly expenses (see ECF, 2 at 4–5), which
leaves him with $719 of disposable income per month. That means he can afford the filing
fee over and above his expenses with less than a month’s disposable income, not even
including his other assets and savings. Though there is no “formula set forth by statute,”
Case 3:26-cv-00494-AGS-BLM Document 7 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-0494-AGS-BLM
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
Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1235, Hill’s monthly disposable income is such that “the Court and
taxpayers” should not “bear the burden of paying [p]laintiff’s filing fee,” Jackson v. Wollet,
No. 1:24-cv-00585-JLT-EPG (PC), 2024 WL 4250643, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2024).
Accordingly, Hill’s reconsideration motion is DENIED.
Dated: March 13, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00494-AGS-BLM Document 7 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2