Grub Morrison v. Melvin Garb Hillel Center et al

3:25-cv-03569-CAB-AHG
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
RICARDO JONATHAN GRUB
MORRISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHABAD OF SAN DIEGO STATE
UNIVERSITY AND OXNARD,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-03569-CAB-AHG
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION
TO PROCEED IFP
[Doc. No. 1]
Ricardo Jonathan Grub Morrison (“Plaintiff” or “Morrison”) has filed a civil
complaint against Chabad of San Diego State University and Oxnard, [Doc. No. 1
(“Complaint.”)], along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Doc. No. 3.]
For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
Case 3:25-cv-03569-CAB-AHG Document 4 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

3:25-cv-03569-CAB-AHG
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
I. 	ANALYSIS
A. 	MOTION TO PROCEED IFP
All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the
United States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of
$405.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A party may initiate a civil action without prepaying the
required filing fee if the Court grants leave to proceed IFP based on indigency. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir. 2007). 	To satisfy the
requirements of § 1915(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states that one
cannot because of [her] poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be able to
provide [for herself] and dependents with the necessities of life.” 	Adkins v. E. I. DuPont
de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2015).
Here, Plaintiff submitted incomplete and inconsistent financial statements. 	[Doc.
Nos. 1, 3.] 	For example, in one document, Plaintiff lists a monthly income of $0 and
monthly expenses of $0, despite also listing employment starting October 20, 2025 at a rate
of $17.25 / hour. 	[Doc. No. 3 at 2.] 	And in another document, he lists receiving
approximately “$1,800±” in the past twelve months from wages, salary, commissions or
earned income of any kind, as well as $432.10 in monthly living expenses. [Complaint at
11, 13.]
The Court cannot properly assess Plaintiff’s IFP application without complete and
noncontradictory documentation as to Plaintiff’s eligibility to proceed IFP. 	The Court
therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP application. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his Complaint,
he must pay the filing fee or submit a complete IFP application.
///
1 Civil litigants must pay an administrative fee of $55 in addition to the $350 filing fee. 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 IFP. Id.
Case 3:25-cv-03569-CAB-AHG Document 4 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3:25-cv-03569-CAB-AHG
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
B. 	SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
If Plaintiff submits a completed IFP and the Court grants it, the Court must then
screen the complaint and sua sponte dismiss it to the extent that it fails to state a claim or
seeks damages from defendants who are immune. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez
v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Section 1915(e)(2)(B) is not
limited to prisoners; instead, it applies to all cases in which the plaintiff proceeds IFP. See
Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001).
Given Plaintiff’s position as a pro se litigant, the Court notes that the current
Complaint has several defects that would likely lead to sua sponte dismissal in its current
form. 	First, the Complaint appears related to a restraining order against Plaintiff but is
otherwise nearly impossible to decipher. Plaintiff must clearly identify the law or right he
thinks was violated, explain what each defendant did, when and where they did it, and how
each defendant’s acts or omissions caused him harm. 	Second, the Complaint does not
indicate whether or how federal jurisdiction is appropriate. Third, the local rules require
that all filed documents are in English, CivLR 5.1, and the Complaint contains many pages
in Spanish.
II. 	CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP and directs the Clerk of
Court to close the case. To re-open the case, Plaintiff must either (1) pay the required filing
fee or (2) submit a fully completed IFP application that is granted by the Court.
The Court further directs the Clerk of Court to mail the Plaintiff a copy of this Order,
a blank copy of this District’s Application to Proceed IFP, and a blank copy of this
District’s Pro Se Non-Prisoner Form Complaint for a Civil Case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 4, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03569-CAB-AHG Document 4 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3