Dunn v. Unified District School Clovis

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALANA DUNN, Case No. 1:25-cv-0962 JLT BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND 14 UNIFIED DISTRICT SCHOOL CLOVIS, DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE et al., FILING FEE WITHIN 21 DAYS 15 Defendants. (Docs. 2, 3) 16 17 Alana Dunn seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, which she initiated by filing 18 a complaint on August 5, 2025. (Docs. 1, 2.) The assigned magistrate judge reviewed the 19 application and found the information provided was “inconsistent with a finding of poverty based 20 on household income, stated expenses, and stated assets.” (Doc. 3 at 2.) The magistrate judge 21 noted that Plaintiff reported an annual household income of $91,294.80, including her own salary 22 as well as the SSI benefits received for four children. (Id. at 2-3.) The magistrate judge found 23 Plaintiff did not show she was unable to pay the filing fee, and recommended the Court deny the 24 request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id. at 3.) 25 Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff 26 provides additional information concerning her income since 2020 and the SSI benefits received 27 for the four children. (Id. at 7-16.) However, Plaintiff does not dispute the finding of the 28 magistrate judge that her annual income exceeds $90,000, or otherwise demonstrate an inability 1 | to pay the Court’s filing fee. Thus, Plaintiffs objections do not show either factual or legal errors 2 | by the magistrate judge. 3 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the case. 4 | Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, including Plaintiff's objections and exhibits, the 5 | Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper 6 | analysis. As the magistrate judge found, Plaintiff's income is sufficient for her to pay the filing 7 | fee and still afford necessities for her and her dependents. See Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 8 | 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004) (a litigant shows indigency when “unable to pay for the 9 | court fees and costs, and to provide necessities for himself and his dependents”). Thus, the Court 10 | ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 7, 2025 (Doc. 3) are 12 ADOPTED in full. 13 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 14 3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the $405.00 filing fee in full within 21 days of the date of 15 service to proceed with this action. 16 Failure to pay the filing fee as ordered will result in the Court dismissing the action 17 without prejudice. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 29 | Dated: _ August 14, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28