(PS) Ireland v. United Parcel Service

E.D. California

(PS) Ireland v. United Parcel Service

DecidedJanuary 3, 2022

Docket1:21-cv-01801

StatusUnknown

This text of (PS) Ireland v. United Parcel Service ((PS) Ireland v. United Parcel Service) 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

(PS) Ireland v. United Parcel Service, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEROME IRELAND, JR., Case No. 1:21-cv-01801-DAD-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE DENIED

14 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, (Doc. 2)

15 Defendant. 21-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 On December 22, 2021, Plaintiff Jerome Ireland, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed a complaint, 18 along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Docs. 1, 2.) 19 According to Plaintiff’s application, his “seasonal” gross pay/wages and take-home pay/wages are 20 both $8,000,000,000. (Doc. 2 at 1.) This is enough to pay the $402 filing fee in this action. 21 Therefore, Plaintiff must show why he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.1 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

1 1 or in material part, to pull his own oar,’” Ross v. San Diego Cty., No. 08CV0107-BEN (RBB), 2008 2 WL 440413, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2008) (citation omitted). Hence, “the court shall dismiss the 3 case at any time if the court determines that the [plaintiff’s] allegation of poverty is untrue.” 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). 5 Plaintiff’s application indicates that he has adequate funds to pay the filing fee for this 6 action. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, within 21 days of the date of service of this 7 order, to show cause in writing why his application to proceed in forma pauperis should not be 8 denied. Failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 9 dismissed for failure to obey a court order. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

12 Dated: December 30, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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 JEROME IRELAND, JR., Case No. 1:21-cv-01801-DAD-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE DENIED

14 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, (Doc. 2)

15 Defendant. 21-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 On December 22, 2021, Plaintiff Jerome Ireland, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed a complaint, 18 along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Docs. 1, 2.) 19 According to Plaintiff’s application, his “seasonal” gross pay/wages and take-home pay/wages are 20 both $8,000,000,000. (Doc. 2 at 1.) This is enough to pay the $402 filing fee in this action. 21 Therefore, Plaintiff must show why he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.1 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

1 1 or in material part, to pull his own oar,’” Ross v. San Diego Cty., No. 08CV0107-BEN (RBB), 2008 2 WL 440413, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2008) (citation omitted). Hence, “the court shall dismiss the 3 case at any time if the court determines that the [plaintiff’s] allegation of poverty is untrue.” 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). 5 Plaintiff’s application indicates that he has adequate funds to pay the filing fee for this 6 action. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, within 21 days of the date of service of this 7 order, to show cause in writing why his application to proceed in forma pauperis should not be 8 denied. Failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 9 dismissed for failure to obey a court order. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

12 Dated: December 30, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PS) Ireland v. United Parcel Service, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ps-ireland-v-united-parcel-service-caed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack