Ortiz v. Georgia Pacific

Filing 10

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Application To Proceed Without Prepayment Of Fees Filed July 23, 2012 (Document 9 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/25/2012. Plaintiff is advised that in order to proceed with his action in this Court, he must pay a filing fee of $350 (see 28 U.S.C. § 1914) no later than August 15, 2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
JOSE A. ORTIZ,
11
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
GEORGIA PACIFIC,
)
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
_____________________________________ )

1:12-cv-1033 LJO GSA
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES
FILED JULY 23, 2012
(Document 9)

17
18
19
20

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Jose A. Ortiz is proceeding pro se in this civil action for employment

21

discrimination. (Doc. 1.) Along with the complaint filed on June 26, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a

22

document entitled “Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis.”1 (Doc. 2.) Following review

23

and consideration of that original application, the Court issued its amended order on July 3, 2012,

24

denying the application and requiring that Plaintiff to submit the $350 filing fee no later than July

25
26
27
28

1

This application was not submitted on the form regularly used in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District.

1

1

30, 2012. (Doc. 4.) Thereafter, on July 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for the Court to appoint

2

counsel to represent him (Doc. 5), as well as a document entitled “Revision For Denying

3

Application To Proceed Without Prepayment Of Fees/To Proceed In Forma Pauperis.” (Doc. 6.)

4

Following consideration of the request to appoint counsel, Magistrate Judge Gary S.

5

Austin denied the request. (Doc. 7.) However, the magistrate judge also ordered the Clerk of the

6

Court to provide Plaintiff with this Court’s approved application to proceed without payment of

7

filing fee, recognizing a possible discrepancy - between the original application and the request

8

under consideration - regarding Plaintiff’s employment status. (Doc. 8.)

9
10

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second application to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Doc. 9.) For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the application.

11

DISCUSSION

12

The application submitted on July 23, 2012, provides that Plaintiff is not currently

13

employed. He last worked for Defendant Georgia Pacific in December 2011. (Doc. 9 at 1.)

14

Plaintiff currently receives disability benefits of $509.14 per week. (Doc. 9 at 1-2.) He has

15

$5,000 in a checking or savings account and owns a 2004 Dodge Durango. (Doc. 9 at 2.)

16

Plaintiff’s wife Cecilia and son Jose depend solely upon him for their own support. (Doc. 9 at 2.)

17

Plaintiff receives approximately $509.00 per week as a disability benefit. That sum

18

multiplied by fifty-two weeks exceeds the federal poverty guideline2 of $19,090 for a family of

19

three ($509 x 52 = $26,468). Equally significant however is the fact that Plaintiff has $5,000 in a

20

checking or saving account at present. Thus, funds are available to Plaintiff well in excess of the

21

required filing fee. As a result, Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed without payment of the filing

22

fee. In forma pauperis status is reserved for those individuals with a true financial need who can

23

demonstrate an inability to pay the required filing fee.

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

2

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml.

2

1

ORDER

2

In light of the foregoing, this Court finds Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed without

3

prepayment of the $350 filing fee. Further, Plaintiff is advised that in order to proceed with his

4

action in this Court, he must pay a filing fee of $350 (see 28 U.S.C. § 1914) no later than August

5

15, 2012.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated:
66h44d

July 25, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3