(PC) Santiago Pratt v. Clark

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 29, 2021·No. 1:21-cv-00180·Unknown

Opinion

SANTIAGO PRATT, Case No.: 1:21-cv-00180-JLT (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. SHOULD NOT BE DENIED

KEN CLARK, et al., 21-DAY DEADLINE Defendants. Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. (Doc. 6.) According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation certified account statement submitted by Plaintiff, he had $9,849.47 in his inmate trust account as of December 9, 2020. (Doc. 2.) This is more than enough to pay the $402 filing fee in full. Therefore, Plaintiff must show why he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. Proceeding “in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). While a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis, Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948), “‘the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public 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- MDD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173063, *2 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984)). Hence, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the [plaintiff’s] allegation of poverty is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). Plaintiff appears to have adequate funds to pay the filing fee for this action. Accordingly, within 21 days of the date of service of this order, the Plaintiff SHALL to show cause in writing why his motion to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied. Alternatively, Plaintiff may pay the filing fee in full. Failure to respond to this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2021 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

(PC) Santiago Pratt v. Clark, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

(PC) Santiago Pratt v. Clark ((PC) Santiago Pratt v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Adkins v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
335 U.S. 331 (Supreme Court, 1948)
In re Smith
1 F. Supp. 847 (N.D. Georgia, 1932)