Tuck v. Capitol One Bank, 3:17-cv-01555

Plaintiff Zach Tuck, pro se, sued multiple defendants under the TCPA, FDCPA, Rosenthal Act, and FCRA and filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
Tuck's initial IFP application stated no income, no assets, and $600 in monthly expenses (including $350 rent); the Court found it deficient and set a show-cause hearing.
Tuck filed an amended IFP declaration describing unemployment, family support arrangements, ownership of two inoperative classic cars, occasional cash payments from his mother, and informal work for cash—materially inconsistent with the original filing.
The Court identified a large number of related consumer cases filed from the same Vista address by Tuck and family members, many seeking IFP and many settled or dismissed, suggesting repeated use of the IFP process.
The Court concluded the amended application did not demonstrate poverty with the required particularity and further found the application and filing pattern evidenced an abuse of the IFP privilege.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument (as found by court)	Held
Whether Tuck's IFP affidavit demonstrates inability to pay filing fee with particularity	Tuck says he is unemployed, has no income or assets, and needs help from his mother; cannot afford fee	Court identified inconsistent statements, undeclared cash/assistance, classic cars, and many similar filings from same address suggesting ability to pay or lack of credibility	Denied IFP: affidavit lacks required particularity and credibility
Whether repeated filings from same address justify denial as abuse of IFP privilege	Tuck did not directly contest abuse finding in ruling; he provided amended facts about household support	Court relied on pattern of multiple cases/settlements from same address showing an abusive pattern of IFP use	Court concluded IFP may be denied when abused and denied application on that ground
Sanctions/conditions on future IFP applications	N/A (Plaintiff sought IFP only)	Court required future procedural conditions given past filings	Ordered Tuck to attach this order to any future IFP application in the district; failure to include it may result in contempt/sanctions
Case management consequence if fee not paid	Tuck sought to proceed without fee	Court required fee payment or filing will not proceed	Denied without prejudice; required payment of filing fee by Jan. 15, 2018 or case will be closed

Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2015) (IFP affidavit must show inability to pay while affording necessities; poverty must be alleged with particularity)
Venerable v. Meyers, 500 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir. 1974) (district court has discretion to grant or deny IFP)
In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 (1991) (Court may deny IFP to prevent abuse of the system)
Demos v. U.S. Dep't for E.D. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160 (9th Cir. 1991) (denial of IFP where petitioner abused privilege)
Hurt v. Social Security Admin., 544 F.3d 308 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (a court may deny IFP prospectively based on the number, content, frequency, and disposition of filings)