Telles v. Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 3

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to File Amended MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERISsigned by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/2/2010. (Leon-Guerrero, A)

Telles v. Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department et al

Doc. 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks also to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). (Doc. 2) Upon review, the Court notes that in his motion, Plaintiff asserts that he has no income source of any kind. (Doc. 2 at 2) However, Plaintiff fails to explain how he is supporting himself despite absolutely no source of income. Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended motion to proceed IFP and is required to list all sources of income. If he persists in his position that he receives absolutely no income, Plaintiff must explain who is providing him food and shelter and his relationship to the person/entity providing this assistance. See Adkins v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948); see also Monti v. McKeon, 600 F.Supp. 112, 114 (D. Conn. 1984) ("in ruling on motions to proceed in forma pauperis, . . . courts have considered the income of interested 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY WILLIAM TELLES JR.,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFFS ) DEPARTMENT, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________ )

Case No. 1:10-cv-01911 AWI JLT ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. 2)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

persons, such as spouses and parents, in evaluating the funds available to the movant . . . If plaintiff is supported by her spouse, and her spouse is financially able to pay the costs of this appeal, it follows that the plaintiff's own lack of funds will not prevent her from gaining access to the courts.") Likewise, Plaintiff reports that he was last employed by El Derodeo Pool & Spa but fails to indicate the date he was last employed. (Doc. 2 at 1) Plaintiff is ordered to provide complete information in his amended IFP motion. Accordingly, within ten days of service of this order, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended motion to proceed IFP that contains the information outlined in the body of this order. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to comply with this order may result in denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 2, 2010 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2