Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Lindsey Stewart, the plaintiff in Stewart v. County of San Diego, et al., asked the Southern District of California to let her proceed in forma pauperis, commonly called IFP, so she could litigate without paying the usual court fees at the outset. The court identified the usual total as $405, consisting of the statutory $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee. It cited Rodriguez v. Cook for the rule that an action may proceed despite nonpayment of filing fees only if the party receives IFP status. The order therefore treated IFP status as the necessary authorization for proceeding without those initial payments.
The court also explained the application requirement under S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(a): an IFP motion must include an affidavit stating all assets and showing an inability to pay the initial fees or give security. Stewart's application reported $23 in food stamps and monthly income of $1,992, including $400 paid to a caregiver. But the court found that she did not list any assets or costs, whether for food or otherwise. Those omissions were the stated defect in her financial showing. The order addressed the sufficiency of that showing, not the underlying merits of her claims against the defendants.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Stewart's IFP application was incomplete and that her request to proceed without paying the usual fees had to be denied on that record. The missing asset and expense information meant the application did not supply the complete financial statement contemplated by the local rule. The court did not say that Stewart could never qualify for IFP status or that her reported income alone established eligibility. Instead, citing her unrepresented status, it granted her leave to file an updated IFP petition. That leave provided an opportunity to correct the omissions identified in the present application.
The operative order denied the pending motion and gave Stewart until December 3, 2026, either to pay the full filing fee or to file an updated IFP petition. It expressly warned that failure to do either would result in dismissal. That is a conditional consequence of noncompliance, rather than an immediate dismissal of the action. The order also directed the Clerk to mail Stewart the court's standard Pro Se Complaint Packet immediately, including a template In Forma Pauperis Application, and identified the court website where those materials are available. These directions supplied Stewart with both a compliance deadline and the standard forms for a renewed request.
Key Takeaways
- An IFP applicant in this district must provide an affidavit stating all assets and demonstrating inability to pay the initial fees or give security.
- Reported income and food-stamp receipts did not cure Stewart's failure to list assets and living costs in her application.
- The court denied the pending IFP motion but expressly allowed Stewart to submit an updated petition because she is unrepresented.
- Stewart must pay the full filing fee or file an updated IFP petition by December 3, 2026, and the order states that failure to do so will result in dismissal.
- The Clerk must mail Stewart the standard Pro Se Complaint Packet, which includes a template IFP application.
Why It Matters
The order applies the local IFP affidavit requirement to a concrete omission: Stewart supplied some income information but no asset or cost information. Its practical significance is procedural. Stewart received another opportunity to establish eligibility for fee relief, but she must either make a complete renewed showing or pay the required fees by the stated deadline. The ruling identifies what was missing from the application without predicting whether an updated petition would succeed.
The decision also distinguishes denial of the current application from termination of the lawsuit. The court did not dismiss Stewart's claims or decide their merits; it denied fee relief as requested, provided a path to correct the application, and warned that noncompliance would lead to dismissal. The direction to supply pro se forms reinforces the opportunity to cure the deficient financial application. Accordingly, the immediate result concerns Stewart's ability to proceed without prepaying fees, while the future of the action depends on her compliance with the court's payment-or-refiling directive.