(PC)Urbina v. Onyeje

E.D. California

(PC)Urbina v. Onyeje

DecidedNovember 10, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-01623

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC)Urbina v. Onyeje ((PC)Urbina v. Onyeje) 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)Urbina v. Onyeje, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIO URBINA, Case No.: 1:21-cv-01623-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED 14 O. ONYEJE, 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Mario Urbina has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 3.) According to the certified account statement attached to his motion, 19 Plaintiff had $1,623.25 in his inmate trust account as of July 2, 2021, and $604.60 as of October 20 25, 2021. (Id. at 4.) This is enough to pay the $402 filing fee in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff 21 must show why he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. 22 Proceeding “in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 23 116 (9th Cir. 1965). While a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis, 24 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948), “‘the same even-handed 25 care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public 26 expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole 27 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) (citation omitted). Hence, “the court 1 shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the [plaintiff’s] allegation of poverty 2 is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). 3 According to his inmate trust account, Plaintiff has adequate funds to pay the filing fee for 4 this action. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, within 21 days of the date of service of 5 this order, to show cause in writing why his motion to proceed IFP should not be denied. Failure 6 to respond to this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for 7 failure to obey a court order. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

10 Dated: November 9, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIO URBINA, Case No.: 1:21-cv-01623-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED 14 O. ONYEJE, 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Mario Urbina has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 3.) According to the certified account statement attached to his motion, 19 Plaintiff had $1,623.25 in his inmate trust account as of July 2, 2021, and $604.60 as of October 20 25, 2021. (Id. at 4.) This is enough to pay the $402 filing fee in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff 21 must show why he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. 22 Proceeding “in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 23 116 (9th Cir. 1965). While a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis, 24 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948), “‘the same even-handed 25 care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public 26 expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole 27 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) (citation omitted). Hence, “the court 1 shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the [plaintiff’s] allegation of poverty 2 is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). 3 According to his inmate trust account, Plaintiff has adequate funds to pay the filing fee for 4 this action. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, within 21 days of the date of service of 5 this order, to show cause in writing why his motion to proceed IFP should not be denied. Failure 6 to respond to this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for 7 failure to obey a court order. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

10 Dated: November 9, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC)Urbina v. Onyeje, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pcurbina-v-onyeje-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack