Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ruben Sanchez filed a civil complaint in the Southern District of California on October 1, 2026, naming Fay Servicing LLC, Wilmington Trust N.A., BDF Law Group, Darlene C. Vigil, Bird Rock Home Mortgage LLC, Callahan Law Firm, APC, and Doe defendants. The order does not describe the claims, so this summary does not characterize them. Along with the complaint, Sanchez moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), docketed as ECF No. 2.
The court began with the general rule that a party starting a civil action must pay a filing fee, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and Civil Local Rule 4.5(a). Section 1915(a) allows the court to authorize a suit without prepayment if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all assets, showing he cannot pay fees or costs. Citing Escobedo v. Applebees, the court explained that an affidavit suffices where it alleges the affiant cannot pay court costs and still afford the necessities of life, and that the applicant must allege poverty with particularity, definiteness, and certainty. Quoting Temple v. Ellerthorpe, it added that equal care must be taken so federal funds do not underwrite the suit of a litigant who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar. It also noted that granting or denying IFP status in civil cases lies within the district court's sound discretion.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion. It relied on the figures in Sanchez's own application: monthly income of approximately $3,000 against enumerated expenses totaling $1,454, citing ECF No. 2 at 1-2, 4-5. On that information, the court said it was not persuaded that Sanchez lacks the funds to pay the filing fee and still afford the necessities of life. Simple subtraction shows reported income exceeding listed expenses by roughly $1,546 per month, although the order itself does not state that figure, the amount of the filing fee, or any analysis of savings or other assets.
The scope of relief is narrow. The court ordered Sanchez to pay the filing fee no later than November 13, 2026, and warned that otherwise his complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. That is a conditional warning, not a dismissal; nothing in the order dismisses the case or any defendant. The court did not screen the complaint, assess its merits, or address service. The order also does not say whether Sanchez may file a renewed or supplemented IFP application, so that question remains open.
Key Takeaways
- The court denied IFP status because the applicant's own reported monthly income of about $3,000 exceeded his listed monthly expenses of $1,454.
- Under the cited Ninth Circuit standard, the question is whether the applicant can pay court costs and still afford the necessities of life, and poverty must be alleged with particularity, definiteness, and certainty.
- The order sets a payment deadline of November 13, 2026, and warns that the complaint will otherwise be dismissed without prejudice; no dismissal has been entered.
- The ruling addresses only fee status and says nothing about the merits of the claims against any defendant.
- Because the decision is a short, unreported district court order, it applies established law to one application and carries no binding precedential weight.
Why It Matters
The order is a routine application of the IFP framework rather than new law. Its practical lesson is that a district court may deny a fee waiver based on the applicant's own numbers when reported income comfortably exceeds listed expenses, even without any finding about substantial savings. Applicants should state their finances fully and specifically, including any circumstances that make listed income unavailable or expenses understated, because the court decides on the application as submitted.
The order is unreported and issued by a single district judge, so it does not bind other courts; its value lies in showing how the cited Ninth Circuit authorities are applied in the Southern District of California. The case remains open but conditioned on payment: if the fee is paid by the deadline, the case can proceed, and if not, the order states the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. The materials do not show whether Sanchez will pay, seek reconsideration, or submit new financial information.