(PC) Stowers v. Hastey

E.D. California

(PC) Stowers v. Hastey

DecidedApril 29, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01110

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Stowers v. Hastey ((PC) Stowers v. Hastey) 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) Stowers v. Hastey, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALTON D. STOWERS, Case No. 2:25-cv-1110-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JASON M. HASTEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state inmate, brings this § 1983 action and concurrently has applied to proceed 18 in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. I have reviewed his trust fund account statement, and it appears 19 that he has sufficient funds to cover the filing fee. His account statement indicates that he has an 20 available balance of $4,601—more than enough to cover the $405 filing fee. Id. But before 21 recommending that plaintiff’s application be denied, I will give him an opportunity to respond to 22 this order and to explain why he cannot both pay the filing fee and still afford his necessities. See 23 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (“An affidavit in support of an IFP 24 application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford 25 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 pauperis. If he fails to do so, I will recommend that plaintiff’s application be denied, and he be 1 | directed to pay the full filing fee. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ( | { ie — Dated: _ April 29, 2025 q——— 5 JEREMY D. PETERSON 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

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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALTON D. STOWERS, Case No. 2:25-cv-1110-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JASON M. HASTEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state inmate, brings this § 1983 action and concurrently has applied to proceed 18 in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. I have reviewed his trust fund account statement, and it appears 19 that he has sufficient funds to cover the filing fee. His account statement indicates that he has an 20 available balance of $4,601—more than enough to cover the $405 filing fee. Id. But before 21 recommending that plaintiff’s application be denied, I will give him an opportunity to respond to 22 this order and to explain why he cannot both pay the filing fee and still afford his necessities. See 23 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (“An affidavit in support of an IFP 24 application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford 25 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 pauperis. If he fails to do so, I will recommend that plaintiff’s application be denied, and he be 1 | directed to pay the full filing fee. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ( | { ie — Dated: _ April 29, 2025 q——— 5 JEREMY D. PETERSON 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Stowers v. Hastey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-stowers-v-hastey-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack