(PC) Sanchez v. Wollet

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 21, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00649
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MATTHEW J. SANCHEZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-00649-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE 12 v. DISMISSED FOR FILING A FALSE IFP AFFIDAVIT 13 MARY ANN WOLLET, et al., (ECF No. 4) 14 Defendants. RESPONSE DUE BY NO LATER THAN 15 JULY 22, 2024 16 17 Plaintiff Matthew J. Sanchez is currently incarcerated at the Bob Wiley Detention Facility 18 and is proceeding pro se in this civil action. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s complaint is dated May 26, 19 2024.1 (Id. at 3). 20 This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (ECF No. 4). For the reasons given below, the Court will require Plaintiff to show cause why this 21 case should not be dismissed for filing a false IFP affidavit. 22 The Court normally requires a $405 filing fee for a civil action. However, a federal 23 statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, permits a plaintiff to commence a lawsuit without prepaying a filing 24 fee. This statute requires “an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner 25 possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” § 1915(a)(1). In 26

27 1 Plaintiff also dated his complaint March 26, 2024. (ECF No. 1, p. 3). However, because the complaint was filed on the docket on June 3, 2024, the Court finds it more likely that the May 26 date is what 28 Plaintiff intended and the March 26 date is a clerical error. 1 addition to filing an affidavit, a prisoner “shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account 2 statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately 3 preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of 4 each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.” § 1915(a)(2). Importantly, under § 1915(e)(2)(A), a “court shall dismiss” a case if it determines that “the allegation of poverty is 5 untrue.” But “[t]o dismiss [a] complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), a showing of bad faith is 6 required, not merely inaccuracy.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 n. 8 (9th Cir. 7 2015). In reviewing an IFP application, a court is “entitled to consider [a plaintiff’s] own 8 economic choices about how to spend his money.” Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th 9 Cir. 1995). For example, the Court can consider that a plaintiff thought it more worthwhile to 10 spend his money on commissary items than to pay the filing fee for his civil rights suit. Id. 11 With these standards in mind, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed the standard IFP 12 application, which includes a declaration signed by Plaintiff answering questions about his 13 finances under penalty of perjury. Importantly, Plaintiff stated that (1) he received no money from 14 any source over the last twelve months; and (2) that he had no cash or any other assets. (ECF No. 15 4). 16 However, according to Plaintiff’s trust account statement, the information in his IFP 17 application is false. Among other things, the statement, shows that (1) Plaintiff received 18 numerous deposits in his account in the six-month period preceding the filing of the complaint; 19 (2) that he had an account balance of $234.25 on May 6, 2024 (the last available balance before 20 he dated his complaint); and (3) that he would have had enough money to pay the entire $405 21 filing fee had he not routinely spent his money on commissary purchases. 22 From these facts, it appears that Plaintiff intentionally made false statements on his IFP 23 affidavit by claiming that he received no money in the last twelve months and had no funds. Further, he could have afforded to pay the filing fee had he not spent his money on numerous 24 commissary purchases. 25 Based on these circumstances, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 26 1. By no later than July 22, 2024, Plaintiff shall file a response to this order, showing cause 27 why this case should not be dismissed for filing a false IFP affidavit. 28 1 2. If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this order, he is advised that this case may be 2 dismissed without further warning. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5| Dated: _Jume 21, 2024 [Je hey — 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28