Free Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-01084-H-JMA

Document 5

Filed 08/13/2008

Page 1 of 2

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 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSEPH CARLINO, Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO. 08-CV-1084-H ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS WITHOUT PREJUDICE (2) DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

WASHINGTON MUTUAL, and DIEDRA BENTLEY Defendants.

On June 19, 2008, plaintiff Joseph Carlino ("Plaintiff") filed case this case against Washington Mutual and Diedra Bentley. The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to illegally garnish Plaintiff's social security disability award. (Doc. No. 1.) The Court transferred the case to Judge Huff under the local "Low Number" rule based on related case 08-CV-1084. See Local Civil Rule 40.1. The Court dismissed that case for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend, on June 11, 2008, and Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within the 45 day period provided by the Court. (See 08-CV-0995, Doc. No. 4.) In this case, Plaintiff has filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") and for appointment of counsel. (Doc. Nos. 2-3.)

08cv1084

Case 3:08-cv-01084-H-JMA

Document 5

Filed 08/13/2008

Page 2 of 2

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

Discussion I. Motion to Proceed IFP At this time, it is unclear to the Court whether Plaintiff is able to pay the filing fee. The motion indicates that Plaintiff receives $1,567 per month from social security disability and medicare. It also indicates that he pays $320 per month in alimony. Though not stated in his motion to proceed IFP, his motion for appointment of counsel indicates a monthly housing payment of $385. Beyond that, Plaintiff does not provide detail about other recurring obligations, such as the monthly payment on any debts owed. Plaintiff indicates that he has no automobile or other significant assets, other than small account balances with Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo. Based on this information, Plaintiff may be able to pay the fee. Since Plaintiff has not affirmatively demonstrated an inability to pay, the Court denies the motion without prejudice. Plaintiff may submit a new motion with more detailed financial information, especially regarding any other monthly obligations. II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel Based on the filings so far, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has a sufficient grasp of the issues and is able to represent himself. Accordingly, the Court denies the pending motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. Conclusion The Court DENIES the motions to proceed IFP and for appointment of counsel, without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 13, 2008 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO: All parties of record.

-2-

08cv1084