Elmore v. Wells Fargo Bank

1
25-CV-3347 JLS (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
MATTHEW ROBERT ELMORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25-CV-3347 JLS (BLM)
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 Matthew Robert Elmore’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 3:25-cv-03347-JLS-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
25-CV-3347 JLS (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
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 3:25-cv-03347-JLS-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
25-CV-3347 JLS (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
In Plaintiff’s IFP Application, Plaintiff states that his monthly income is $0. 	IFP
Appl. at 1. However, Plaintiff provides no further detail as to his inability to pay the $405
filing fee. 	See generally id. 	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 23, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03347-JLS-BLM Document 3 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3