Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On August 21, 2026, plaintiff Adam J. Fitch filed a complaint for damages, declaratory, and equitable relief against Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 Federal Credit Union, alleging the defendant failed to investigate and resolve electronic funds transfer errors in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693-1693r. Fitch simultaneously filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), which permits courts to authorize commencement of a civil action without payment of fees upon submission of an affidavit demonstrating inability to pay.
The court noted that generally all parties instituting a civil action must pay a filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and Civil Local Rule 4.5(a). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) authorizes the court to waive fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing inability to pay. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, an IFP affidavit is sufficient where it alleges the affiant cannot pay court costs and still afford the necessities of life, and the plaintiff must allege poverty with particularity, definiteness, and certainty. The granting or denial of IFP status lies within the sound discretion of the district court.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Fitch's IFP motion after reviewing his financial affidavit. Fitch stated he receives $1,410 in monthly income from employment, while his monthly expenses total $2,285, including $1,500 for rent, $300 for utilities, $100 for home maintenance, $300 for food, $20 for clothing, $15 for laundry, and $50 for credit card payments. He further reported having only $1.93 in his checking and savings accounts combined.
The court found that Fitch's income and bank account balance indicate he does not have funds to pay the filing fee and still afford the necessities of life, satisfying the standard set forth in Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to grant the IFP application, allowing the EFTA case to proceed without prepayment of filing fees.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted in forma pauperis status where plaintiff's monthly expenses ($2,285) exceeded monthly income ($1,410) and available funds were minimal ($1.93).
- The Ninth Circuit standard requires plaintiffs to allege poverty with particularity, definiteness, and certainty, and to show inability to pay court costs while affording necessities of life.
- IFP determinations are within the sound discretion of the district court.
- The underlying EFTA claim alleging failure to investigate electronic funds transfer errors will proceed on the merits.
- This order is a non-dispositive IFP ruling that does not adjudicate the merits of the EFTA claim; it only waives the filing fee requirement.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the application of the Ninth Circuit's IFP standard in a consumer protection case under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. The court's willingness to grant IFP status where a plaintiff's documented expenses exceed income and liquid assets are negligible ensures access to federal courts for indigent litigants pursuing statutory claims. The ruling allows Fitch's EFTA allegations—concerning a financial institution's duty to investigate and resolve electronic transfer errors—to proceed to the merits stage without the barrier of filing fees.
The decision underscores the practical operation of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) in the Southern District of California. By granting IFP status based on a detailed financial affidavit showing monthly expenses exceeding income by $875 and a combined bank balance of less than two dollars, the court applied the Escobedo standard in a straightforward manner. The order does not address the merits of the EFTA claim, but it removes a significant procedural hurdle for a pro se plaintiff seeking to litigate alleged violations of federal consumer protection law. The case will now proceed to service of process and subsequent proceedings on the underlying allegations.