(PC) Vargas v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, E.D. California·Decided February 10, 2020·No. 1:20-cv-00083·Unknown

Opinion

DOMINIC VARGAS (AKA DIAMOND CASE NO. 1:20-cv-0083 JLT (PC)

VARGAS), Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE v. DENIED CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF (Docs. 2, 7) REHABILITATION, et al., 21-DAY DEADLINE Defendants. Plaintiff has applied to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) The Inmate Statement Report submitted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in support of plaintiff’s application shows an account balance fluctuating between $43.76 and $627.08, with the balance routinely exceeding $250. 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 IFP, 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. 15cv2628-MMA (MDD), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173063, *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2015) (citing Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984)). “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines the allegation of poverty is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). It appears that plaintiff has had sufficient funds over the last several months to be required to pay the filing fee in full to proceed in this action, but he chose to spend his money elsewhere. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that within 21 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall show cause why his motion to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied and he be required to pay the filing fee in full before proceeding. Alternatively, plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal. Failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal for failure to obey a court order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 10, 2020 /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) Vargas v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

(PC) Vargas v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ((PC) Vargas v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) — 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)