Burkel v. Crager

D. Arizona

Burkel v. Crager

DecidedJanuary 25, 2022

Docket2:21-cv-02048

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Burkel v. Crager, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Thomas L Burkel, No. CV-21-02048-PHX-ESW

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Mike Crager, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 16 The Court is in receipt of pro se Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court 17 Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). Such applications, also known as applications 18 to proceed in forma pauperis, must show an “inability to pay costs or give security.” LRCiv 19 3.3(a). “A court may exercise a limited judicial discretion in the granting or denial of 20 permission to proceed in forma pauperis.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 21 (9th Cir. 1960). 22 The Application represents that Plaintiff’s average monthly income during the past 23 twelve months exceeds $1,000,000, that his homes’ value is approximately $6.9 million, 24 and that his vehicles have a value of $259,000. (Doc. 2 at 1, 3). Plaintiff’s representations, 25 made under penalty of perjury, do not evidence an inability to pay costs or give security. 26 Accordingly, 27 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application (Doc. 2) is denied. Plaintiff shall 28 have fourteen (14) days from the entry of this Order to pay the filing fee of $402.00. If 1|| Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order, the || action will be dismissed. 3 Dated this 25th day of January, 2022. 4

6 Honorable Eileen S. Willett 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

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

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Thomas L Burkel, No. CV-21-02048-PHX-ESW

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Mike Crager, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 16 The Court is in receipt of pro se Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court 17 Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). Such applications, also known as applications 18 to proceed in forma pauperis, must show an “inability to pay costs or give security.” LRCiv 19 3.3(a). “A court may exercise a limited judicial discretion in the granting or denial of 20 permission to proceed in forma pauperis.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 21 (9th Cir. 1960). 22 The Application represents that Plaintiff’s average monthly income during the past 23 twelve months exceeds $1,000,000, that his homes’ value is approximately $6.9 million, 24 and that his vehicles have a value of $259,000. (Doc. 2 at 1, 3). Plaintiff’s representations, 25 made under penalty of perjury, do not evidence an inability to pay costs or give security. 26 Accordingly, 27 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application (Doc. 2) is denied. Plaintiff shall 28 have fourteen (14) days from the entry of this Order to pay the filing fee of $402.00. If 1|| Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order, the || action will be dismissed. 3 Dated this 25th day of January, 2022. 4

6 Honorable Eileen S. Willett 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Burkel v. Crager, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burkel-v-crager-azd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack