(PC) Johnson v. Flores

E.D. California

(PC) Johnson v. Flores

DecidedOctober 13, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-01491

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

(PC) Johnson v. Flores, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, Case No.: 1:21-cv-01491-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED 14 LT. FLORES, 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Christopher Johnson has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2.) According to the certified account statement submitted by 19 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Plaintiff had $1,535.39 in his inmate 20 trust account as of July 15, 2021. (Doc. 5.) As of September 17, 2021, Plaintiff had $433.60 in his 21 account. This is enough to pay the $402 filing fee in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff must show 22 why he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. 23 Proceeding “in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 24 116 (9th Cir. 1965). While a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis, 25 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948), “‘the same even-handed 26 care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public 27 expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar,’” Doe v. Educ. Enrichment Sys., No. 15-cv-2628-MMA- 1 MDD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173063, *2 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (citation omitted). Hence, “the court 2 shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the [plaintiff’s] allegation of poverty 3 is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). 4 According to his inmate trust account, Plaintiff has adequate funds to pay the filing fee for 5 this action. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, within 21 days of the date of service of 6 this order, to show cause in writing why his motion to proceed IFP should not be denied. Failure 7 to respond to this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for 8 failure to obey a court order. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

11 Dated: October 13, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, Case No.: 1:21-cv-01491-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED 14 LT. FLORES, 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Christopher Johnson has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2.) According to the certified account statement submitted by 19 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Plaintiff had $1,535.39 in his inmate 20 trust account as of July 15, 2021. (Doc. 5.) As of September 17, 2021, Plaintiff had $433.60 in his 21 account. This is enough to pay the $402 filing fee in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff must show 22 why he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. 23 Proceeding “in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 24 116 (9th Cir. 1965). While a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis, 25 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948), “‘the same even-handed 26 care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public 27 expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar,’” Doe v. Educ. Enrichment Sys., No. 15-cv-2628-MMA- 1 MDD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173063, *2 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (citation omitted). Hence, “the court 2 shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the [plaintiff’s] allegation of poverty 3 is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). 4 According to his inmate trust account, Plaintiff has adequate funds to pay the filing fee for 5 this action. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, within 21 days of the date of service of 6 this order, to show cause in writing why his motion to proceed IFP should not be denied. Failure 7 to respond to this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for 8 failure to obey a court order. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

11 Dated: October 13, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Johnson v. Flores, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-johnson-v-flores-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack