Melvin v. Staples Inc.

• Decision Date: 09 January 2023
• Docket Number: 22cv1130-LL-WVG
• Parties: ANTONYIO S. MELVIN, Plaintiff, v. STAPLES INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California

ANTONYIO S. MELVIN, Plaintiff,
v.
STAPLES INC., Defendant.

No. 22cv1130-LL-WVG

United States District Court, S.D. California

January 9, 2023

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IFP; AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NOS. 1, 2]

HONORABLE LINDA LOPEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Antonyio S. Melvin filed this civil action against Defendant Staples Inc. (“Staples”) on August 1, 2022. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time of filing; instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF No. 2. Having considered carefully Plaintiff's Complaint, IFP Motion, and the applicable law, the Court: (1) GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP and (2) DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice.

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP

“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,

1

787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The granting or denial of leave to proceed IFP in civil cases is within the sound discretion of the district court. Venable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted).

Plaintiff submits that, although his average income over the twelve months preceding his IFP application totaled $1,600 per month, he anticipates a monthly income of $600 per month due to a recent injury that rendered him unable to work. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff states that his monthly expenses total $570, including rent, food, clothing, laundry, and support payments to others. Id. Upon review of Plaintiff's application, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that he is unable to pay the filing fee. However, the Court may direct Plaintiff to pay the filing fee to the Clerk of Court if Plaintiff's financial situation improves during the course of litigation, or from settlement proceeds. See Stehouwer v. Hennessey, 841 F.Supp. 316, 321 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (“IFP status may be acquired or lost during the course of the litigation, and the court may waive or order payment of costs for any of the benefits that may arise under the statute.”), aff'd in pertinent part sub nom. Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995).

II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

A. Legal Standard

A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed IFP is subject to sua sponte dismissal if it is (i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners[.]”). Congress enacted this safeguard because “‘a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious or repetitive lawsuits.'” Denton v. Hernandez,

2

504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). In fact, “section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (citing Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)).

“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Lopez, 203 F.3d 1122). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In reviewing a complaint's plausibility, courts “accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Nonetheless, courts are not required to “accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re...