Austin v. State Bar
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-06794
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Austin v. State Bar, Judge Hixson required George Jarvis Austin to pay the fee or revise his financial application and warned about pleading problems.
George Jarvis Austin, whose request to proceed without prepaying the full filing fee remained unresolved and who was required to provide financial information or pay the fee; the order also identified pleading problems that Austin would need to address to continue the case.
What happened
In Austin v. State Bar, the court addressed George Jarvis Austin’s request to proceed without paying the full filing fee. The court also gave him information about federal pleading requirements and resources for people representing themselves.
The court ordered Austin to either pay the full filing fee or request permission to make a partial payment as part of a revised application. Because his application repeatedly said “Not disclosed” instead of providing financial information, the court required a new application with actual numbers if he did not pay the full fee. The deadline for these submissions was October 1, 2021.
Judge Hixson did not decide whether Austin qualified to proceed without paying the full fee and did not rule on the merits of his claims. The court warned that the case could be dismissed without prejudice if Austin did not comply and said his 78-page complaint likely did not meet the requirement for a clear, short statement of his claims.
The detailed version
- Austin v. State Bar · No. 4:21-cv-06794
- Jon Tigar
- Sept. 3, 2021
Background
George Jarvis Austin sued State Bar and applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning he asked to proceed without prepaying the full civil filing fee. He had already paid $101 toward the filing fee but had not asked the court for permission to make a partial payment.
Filing-fee order
The court ordered Austin, by October 1, 2021, to either pay the full filing fee or file a request to make a partial payment as part of his in forma pauperis application. The order states that the full civil filing fee was $402, consisting of a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee.
In forma pauperis screening
The court found that it could not determine whether Austin qualified to proceed without prepaying the fee because his application repeatedly listed his financial information as “Not disclosed.” The court therefore required him, if he did not pay the full fee, to submit an amended application with a new affidavit containing actual financial numbers. The court stated that failure to do so could result in dismissal without prejudice. It also stated that Austin could voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice by filing a one-page notice.
The order explained that an in forma pauperis application requires information about the applicant’s assets and ability to pay. It also explained that, if Austin was not allowed to proceed without prepaying the fee, he would have to serve the complaint and related documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
Pleading notice
The court advised that the in forma pauperis statute requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. It also explained Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement giving the defendant fair notice of the claims and the grounds for relief.
The court stated that Austin’s 78-page complaint likely did not satisfy Rule 8 because it did not clearly identify the claims or connect the alleged facts to the defendants. The court advised him to explain the facts supporting his complaint, why each named defendant was being sued, and which claims were asserted against each defendant.
Resources and disposition
Because Austin was not represented by counsel, the court provided information about the Legal Help Center and the district court’s handbook for litigants without a lawyer.
This was a procedural order concerning the filing fee, the in forma pauperis application, and pleading requirements. Judge Hixson did not grant or deny the application, dismiss the case, or decide the merits of Austin’s claims. Instead, the court ordered further action by October 1, 2021 and warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal without prejudice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.