(PS) Rogers v. Mountain Valley Unified School District

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 31, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02587
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY ROGERS, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02587-TLN-CSK 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO PROCEED 13 v. IFP 14 MOUNTAIN VALLEY UNIFIED (ECF No. 2) SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs Anthony Rogers and Roberto Romero are representing themselves in 18 this action and seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915.1 (ECF No. 2.) For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ 20 request to proceed IFP. 21 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 22 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in any district court of the 23 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. See 24 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party's failure to pay the filing fee 25 only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “Where there are multiple plaintiffs in a 2 single action, the plaintiffs may not proceed in forma pauperis unless all of them 3 demonstrate inability to pay the filing fee.” Martinez v. Lutz, 2018 WL 3924266, at *1 4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2018) (citation omitted); see also Anderson v. California, 2010 WL 5 4316996, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2010) (“[A]lthough only one filing fee needs to be paid 6 per case, if multiple plaintiffs seek to proceed in forma pauperis, each plaintiff must 7 qualify for IFP status.”) 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 This action is brought by Plaintiff Rogers and Plaintiff Romero. Compl. at 1 (ECF 10 No. 1). However, there is a single request to proceed IFP. (ECF No. 2.) The request 11 names Plaintiff Rogers and Plaintiff Romero, and indicates Plaintiffs receive $4,000 in 12 gross pay or wages and that their biweekly take-home pay or wages is $3,100. (ECF No. 13 2 at 1 ¶ 2.) The request, however, is signed only by Plaintiff Rogers. Id. at 2. For 14 Plaintiffs to collectively proceed IFP in this action, each plaintiff must submit his own 15 separate, signed, and complete IFP application. In the absence of IFP applications for 16 each Plaintiff, the Court is unable to determine whether each Plaintiff qualifies for IFP 17 status. See Martinez, 2018 WL 392466, at *1. To proceed in this action, Plaintiffs must: 18 (1) pay the filing fee, or (2) each file a complete and signed application to proceed IFP 19 within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Plaintiffs are warned that failure to pay 20 the filing fee, or submit complete IFP applications for each Plaintiff, by the prescribed 21 deadlinem will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without 22 prejudice. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ request to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) 23 without prejudice. 24 III. CONCLUSION 25 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that: 26 1. Plaintiffs’ request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED 27 without prejudice; 28 2. Plaintiffs must pay the filing fee or each file a complete and signed 1 application to proceed IFP within thirty (30) days from the date of this 2 order; and 3 3. Plaintiffs are warned that failure to pay the filing fee or submit complete IFP 4 applications by each Plaintiff by the prescribed deadline will result in a 5 recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 6 ; Dated: March 31, 2025 C iy S \U 8 GHI 500 KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 4, roge2587.24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28