El v. U.S. Department of State
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:19-cv-06654
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Antonio El v. U.S. Department of State, Judge Spero ordered plaintiffs to explain why their filing-fee waiver application should not be denied.
The four plaintiffs and their request to proceed without paying the filing fee; the order required each plaintiff to submit a separate financial form.
What happened
Antonio El, Marie Mairiam Bijou Bayo El, Ali Bey, and Amirah White El sued the U.S. Department of State and many other defendants. They filed one application asking to proceed without paying the filing fee, and Antonio El signed it for the group.
The court found the application unclear and incomplete. It said the form claimed Antonio El was employed but received no pay, listed no income or money in the bank, and answered the other questions “N/A.” The court also said one plaintiff’s form could not establish that all four plaintiffs lacked the money to pay the fee.
Judge Spero ordered the plaintiffs to respond by November 12, 2019, and submit a separate completed form for each plaintiff. If they did not respond, the court said it would deny the application; the plaintiffs would then have an opportunity to pay the filing fee, and failure to pay could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed.
The detailed version
- El v. U.S. Department of State · No. 3:19-cv-06654
- Maxine Chesney
- Oct. 21, 2019
Background
Antonio El, Marie Mairiam Bijou Bayo El, Ali Bey, and Amirah White El filed an action against dozens of defendants, including the U.S. Department of State, the State of California, the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the Los Angeles County Probation Department, and several individuals. The opinion states that some defendants are public officials. The plaintiffs filed a single application to proceed without paying the filing fee, signed by Antonio El.
The filing-fee application
The application stated that Antonio El was employed under “Federal Employer - 06143,” but reported $0.00 in gross and take-home pay, no income from other sources during the preceding twelve months, and no cash or money in a bank account. He answered the other questions “N/A.” The court found the application internally inconsistent because it reported employment but no pay, and because it appeared inconsistent with the costs of printing and mailing the lawsuit. The court concluded that the application did not establish even that Antonio El was unable to pay, much less that the other plaintiffs were unable to pay.
The court also stated that, as far as it was aware, every district court in the Ninth Circuit that had considered the issue had required all plaintiffs in a case to show that they were unable to pay before waiving the filing fee.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause—meaning to explain—why their application should not be denied. It required a response by November 12, 2019, with one completed form for each of the four plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were instructed to answer every question and, if they truly had no assets or income, to briefly explain how they met their basic needs.
The court did not deny the application in this order. Instead, it stated that failure to respond by the deadline would result in denial of the application. If the application were denied, the plaintiffs would receive an opportunity to pay the filing fee; if they failed to do so, the magistrate judge would recommend that the case be dismissed.
Disposition
The court issued an order to show cause concerning the application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion was signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.