(PC) Louprasong v. San Joaquin County Jail Recreational

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 AMPHONE LOUPRASONG, Case No. 2:24-cv-3416-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER RECREATIONAL, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a county inmate, brings this § 1983 action and concurrently has applied to 18 proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. I have reviewed his trust fund account statement, and it 19 appears that he has sufficient funds to cover the filing fee. His account statement indicates that he 20 has an available balance of $1,496—more than enough to cover the $405 filing fee. Id. But 21 before recommending that plaintiff’s application be denied, I will give him an opportunity to 22 respond to this order and to explain why he cannot both pay the filing fee and still afford his 23 necessities. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (“An affidavit in 24 support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court 25 costs and still afford the necessities of life.”). 26 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that within twenty-one days of this order’s entry plaintiff 27 may respond to this order and explain why he should still be allowed to proceed in forma 28 1 | pauperis. Ifhe fails to do so, I will recommend that plaintiffs application be denied, and he be 2 | directed to pay the full filing fee. 3

Dated: _ December 19, 2024 Q————. 6 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28