Bradley v. Salinas

W.D. Washington

Bradley v. Salinas

DecidedJuly 10, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-01017

StatusUnknown

This text of Bradley v. Salinas (Bradley v. Salinas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradley v. Salinas, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 ALONZO BRADLEY, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-01017-JCC 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO 11 BONITO SALINAS, owner of Lynnwood PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Tire and Auto, 12 Defendant. 13 On July 8, 2020, Plaintiff Alonzo Bradley filed a Declaration and Application to Proceed 14 In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 4. 15 As a general rule, all parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a United 16 States District Court must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The Court may authorize the 17 commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees and costs of security therefor, by a 18 person who submits an affidavit that ... the person is unable to pay such fees or give security 19 therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Therefore, an action may proceed despite a failure to prepay 20 the filing fee only if leave to proceed IFP is granted by the Court. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 21 F.3d 1178, 1177 (9th Cir.1999). 22 The Ninth Circuit has held “permission to proceed [IFP] is itself a matter of privilege and 23 not a right; denial of an [IFP] status does not violate the applicant’s right to due process.” Weller ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 1 v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir.1963). The Court has broad discretion to grant or deny a 2 motion to proceed IFP. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990); Weller, 314 F.2d at 3 600-601. 4 By filing a request to proceed IFP, Plaintiff is asking the government to incur the filing 5 fee because he allegedly is unable to afford the costs necessary to proceed with his complaint.

6 However, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information, which would allow the Court to 7 determine whether to grant his application. For example, Plaintiff did not properly complete the 8 following portion of his application: ¶7 (monthly expenses incurred, such as housing, 9 transportation, utilities, loan payments, or other regular monthly expenses). Plaintiff states that 10 his monthly expenses are exactly the amount of his net monthly salary but fails to provide the 11 itemization requested. 12 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide this additional information by July 24, 13 2020 so that the Court may determine whether to grant or deny his IFP application. 14 DATED this 10th day of July, 2020.

15 A 16 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA Chief United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 ALONZO BRADLEY, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-01017-JCC 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO 11 BONITO SALINAS, owner of Lynnwood PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Tire and Auto, 12 Defendant. 13 On July 8, 2020, Plaintiff Alonzo Bradley filed a Declaration and Application to Proceed 14 In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 4. 15 As a general rule, all parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a United 16 States District Court must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The Court may authorize the 17 commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees and costs of security therefor, by a 18 person who submits an affidavit that ... the person is unable to pay such fees or give security 19 therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Therefore, an action may proceed despite a failure to prepay 20 the filing fee only if leave to proceed IFP is granted by the Court. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 21 F.3d 1178, 1177 (9th Cir.1999). 22 The Ninth Circuit has held “permission to proceed [IFP] is itself a matter of privilege and 23 not a right; denial of an [IFP] status does not violate the applicant’s right to due process.” Weller ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 1 v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir.1963). The Court has broad discretion to grant or deny a 2 motion to proceed IFP. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1990); Weller, 314 F.2d at 3 600-601. 4 By filing a request to proceed IFP, Plaintiff is asking the government to incur the filing 5 fee because he allegedly is unable to afford the costs necessary to proceed with his complaint.

6 However, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information, which would allow the Court to 7 determine whether to grant his application. For example, Plaintiff did not properly complete the 8 following portion of his application: ¶7 (monthly expenses incurred, such as housing, 9 transportation, utilities, loan payments, or other regular monthly expenses). Plaintiff states that 10 his monthly expenses are exactly the amount of his net monthly salary but fails to provide the 11 itemization requested. 12 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide this additional information by July 24, 13 2020 so that the Court may determine whether to grant or deny his IFP application. 14 DATED this 10th day of July, 2020.

15 A 16 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA Chief United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bradley v. Salinas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-salinas-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack