(PC) Ray v. Hasem

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedSeptember 3, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-00072
StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Ray v. Hasem ((PC) Ray v. Hasem) 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) Ray v. Hasem, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY D. RAY, No. 2:21-cv-0072 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 O. HASEM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se. He seeks relief pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Before the court are plaintiff’s motion for a forty-five-day extension of time 20 to file an in forma pauperis application, ECF No. 9, and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 21 ECF No. 10. 22 Approximately six weeks after filing his in forma pauperis application, plaintiff filed 23 a notice of change of address. ECF No. 11. It appears from the notice that plaintiff is no longer 24 incarcerated. Upon release from prison, a former inmate must be allowed to apply to proceed 25 under general in forma pauperis provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). See DeBlasio v. Gilmore, 26 315 F.3d 396, 399 (4th Cir. 2003); see also Webb v. Lambert, No. CV 12-00041-H-DLC, 2012 27 WL 5931889, at *1 (D. Mont. Aug. 29, 2012) (citing DeBlasio). A released prisoner may 28 proceed in forma pauperis upon satisfying the poverty provisions applicable to non-prisoners. 1 | McGann v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 96 F.3d 29, 30 (2d Cir. 1996). 2 Plaintiff's indigent status while incarcerated, which is documented in his IFP application, 3 || isno longer relevant. The court must evaluate plaintiffs in forma pauperis status as a non- 4 || prisoner. The pending in forma pauperis application will therefore be denied and plaintiff will be 5 || directed to file an in forma pauperis application for non-prisoners. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiffs request for an extension of time, ECF No. 9, is DENIED as moot; 8 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 10, is DENIED without 9 || prejudice to an application to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner; 10 3. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a copy of the court’s application to proceed in 11 | forma pauperis for non-prisoners, and 12 4. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff must complete and file the non- 13 || prisoner in forma pauperis application in this court. 14 || DATED: September 3, 2021 ~ 15 thin Chane ALLISON CLAIRE 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

Related

Deblasio v. Gilmore
315 F.3d 396 (Fourth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
(PC) Ray v. Hasem, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-ray-v-hasem-caed-2021.