(PC) Hilt v. Sinaie

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 6, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00936
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GRALING MAJOR HILT, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00936-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE A PROPERLY COMPLETED 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BY A PRISONER AND TO 14 MOSHE SINAIE, CLARIFY ENTRIES ON HIS INMATE STATEMENT REPORT 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff Graling Major Hilt is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. section 1983. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint on July 31, 2025. (Doc. 1.) That same 21 date, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by a Prisoner. (Doc. 2.) 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 In the application, Plaintiff states he is currently incarcerated and is not employed. (Doc. 24 1.) Plaintiff failed to answer Questions 3 through 7 of the application regarding income sources, 25 cash and other assets, and dependent persons. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff also failed to date the 26 application. (Id. at 2.) 27 Additionally, following receipt and review of Plaintiff’s Inmate Statement Report dated 1 relevant period. (Doc. 6.) The following seven JPAY deposits totaling $1,130 occurred between 2 February 1, 2025, and August 1, 2025: 3 2/16/25 JPAY $300 4 3/8/25 JPAY $150 5 4/18/25 JPAY $ 50 6 4/23/25 JPAY $100 7 5/19/25 JPAY $150 8 6/6/25 JPAY $300 9 6/14/25 JPAY $ 80 10 (Id. at 2.) The Court notes four SALES transactions totaling $854.45 occurred during the relevant 11 period. (Id.) Monies provided to Plaintiff via JPAY should be disclosed and explained. See, e.g., 12 Owens v. Schultz, No. 1:24-cv-00820-SKO, 2024 WL 3722881, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. July 19, 2024) 13 (directing plaintiff to “explain the sixteen JPAY entries appearing on his Inmate Statement 14 Report”). 15 Plaintiff is also advised this Court may take into consideration purchases in determining 16 whether an individual should be granted IFP status. Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th 17 Cir. 1995) (citation omitted) (courts are entitled to consider plaintiffs’ “economic choices about 18 how to spend [their] money” when considering applications to proceed IFP); see also Lumbert v. 19 Illinois Dep’t of Corr., 827 F.2d 257, 260 (7th Cir. 1987) (“If the inmate thinks that a more 20 worthwhile use of his funds would be to buy peanuts and candy . . . than to file a civil rights suit, 21 he has demonstrated an implied evaluation of the suit that the district court is entitled to honor”); 22 see also Owens, 2024 WL 3722881, at *1-2. Specifically, Plaintiff will be directed to explain the 23 seven JPAY entries totaling $1,130 (Id. at 2), and to describe the four SALES entries totaling 24 $854.45. (Id.) 25 Finally, the Court notes Plaintiff indicated on his application that he was not “currently 26 employed (includes prison employment)” (see Doc. 2 at 1); however, Plaintiff’s Inmate Statement 27 Report reveals four entries titled “I/M PAY – SUPPORT” during the relevant period (see Doc. 6 1 this discrepancy. 2 In sum, Plaintiff’s IFP application and Inmate Statement Report do not establish he is 3 entitled to IFP status. Because Plaintiff failed to respond to Questions 3 through 7, his application 4 is incomplete. Additional information is also needed regarding entries on Plaintiff’s Inmate 5 Statement Report. To ensure Plaintiff is entitled to proceed without prepayment of the required 6 $405 filing fee for this action, Plaintiff will be directed to provide responses to Questions 3 7 through 7, to explain the JPAY and SALES transactions on his Inmate Statement Report dated 8 August 1, 2025, and to explain the discrepancy concerning his employment status, before the 9 Court issues a ruling on his pending IFP application. 10 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 11 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 12 1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve Plaintiff with a copy of his IFP 13 application filed July 31, 2025 (Doc. 2) and the Inmate Statement Report dated August 14 1, 2025 (Doc. 6), for ease of reference and as a one-time courtesy, along with this 15 Order. 16 2. Plaintiff SHALL provide the following information, in writing and under penalty of 17 perjury, within 21 days of the date of this Order: 18 a. Responses to Questions 3 through 7 in his application; 19 b. An explanation for the JPAY and SALES transactions appearing on Plaintiff’s 20 Inmate Statement Report dated August 1, 2025; and 21 c. An explanation regarding the discrepancy in his employment status. 22 3. Plaintiff SHALL sign and date the application; and 23 4. Alternatively, Plaintiff may remit the full filing fee of $405 within 21 days. 24 WARNING: A failure to comply with this Order may result in a recommendation 25 that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for a failure to obey court orders. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27

Dated: August 6, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27