El v. State of California
- James Donato
- 3:23-cv-00128
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In El v. State of California, Judge Donato denied the plaintiffs’ joint fee-waiver request and gave them until April 21 to reapply or pay.
The four plaintiffs, who were representing themselves, were affected by the denial of the single IFP application and the deadline to submit individual applications or pay the filing fee. The case was stayed, and failure to meet the deadline would result in dismissal without prejudice.
What happened
In El v. State of California, four plaintiffs representing themselves sued more than a dozen defendants, including California, the State Bar, Alameda County, and individuals. Antonio El alone signed the application asking to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The application said El had no income, money, or property of value, but materials attached to the complaint showed at least two tax-exempt purchases exceeding $100. The court also explained that each person seeking this status must submit an individual financial statement.
Judge Donato denied the application without prejudice and gave the plaintiffs another opportunity to apply individually or pay the filing fee by April 21, 2023. The court said the case would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute if they did neither; it also stayed the case, vacated the initial case-management conference, and terminated El’s request concerning the alternative-dispute-resolution program without prejudice to renewal.
The detailed version
- El v. State of California · No. 3:23-cv-00128
- James Donato
- Mar. 20, 2023
Background
Pro se plaintiffs Antonio El, Marie Mairiam Bijou Bayo-El, Amirah Marie Toni White-El, and Ali Mijan Muhammed White-Bey filed an action against more than a dozen defendants, including the State of California, the State Bar of California, the County of Alameda, and multiple individuals.
The plaintiffs submitted one application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning to proceed without paying the filing fee because of inability to pay. Only Antonio El signed the application. It stated that he had no gross or take-home pay, no other income, no cash or money in checking or savings accounts, and no automobile, real estate, securities, jewelry, artwork, or other listed property of value. Materials filed with the complaint, however, indicated at least two tax-exempt purchases exceeding $100.
Ruling
The court denied the IFP application without prejudice. It explained that IFP status is decided separately for each individual and that each individual plaintiff must submit his or her own statement of income and related financial information. The plaintiffs were given another opportunity to request IFP status in a manner consistent with that requirement, or to pay the filing fee, by April 21, 2023.
The court ordered that failure to file a response or pay the filing fee by that date would result in dismissal of the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The case was otherwise stayed pending further order. The initial case-management conference scheduled for April 13, 2023, was vacated. El’s request for relief from automatic referral to the alternative-dispute-resolution program was terminated without prejudice to renewal after the IFP application was resolved. Judge Donato did not decide the underlying claims in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.