Burciaga v. Banh et al

Filing 6

ORDER requiring Plaintiff to file a correct IFP Application or pay filing fee signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/5/2017. (Motion for IFP due within 14-Days). (Attachments: # 1 IFP Application). (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MANUEL BURCIAGA, Plaintiff, 8 ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE CORRECT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS OR PAY FILING FEE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS v. 9 10 CASE NO. 1:17-cv-0200 DAD-BAM JAMES BANH, et al., Defendants. 11 / 12 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14 1983 on February 13, 2017. (Doc. 1). On February 15, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit an 15 application to proceed informa pauperis in this action, or in the alternative, pay the filing fee in the 16 amount of $400.00 within forty-five days of the service of that order. (Doc. 2). On March 3, 2017, 17 Plaintiff filed a letter in “reply to the order to submit application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay 18 filing fee.” (Doc. 3). In his letter, Plaintiff appears to allege that House Joint Resolution 192 and 19 other laws forbid the government from enforcing the payment of monetary debts and therefore the 20 Court’s order that he submits an in forma pauperis application or pays a monetary filing fee is 21 unenforceable.1 Plaintiff’s theory is without merit. See Matchynski v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, 2014 22 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6810 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2014) (“California courts have firmly rejected [the] theory 23 premised on the gold standard that a private individual’s issuance of documents claiming the 24 obligation of the United States to pay the face value constitutes tender”); Vann v. Wells Fargo Bank, 25 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72760 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2012) (recognizing courts’ rejection of 26 1 27 28 House Joint Resolution 192 bears the heading, “To assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States,” and states, in essence, that obligations requiring payment “in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby” are against public policy, and that U.S. currency is legal tender for all debts. H.R.J. Res. 192, 73d Cong. (1933). 1 1 “redemptionist” or “sovereign citizen” theories premised on House Joint Resolution 192); Bryant v. 2 Washington Mutual Bank, 524 F. Supp. 2d 753, 760 (W.D. Va. 2007) (Plaintiff’s reliance on House 3 Joint Resolution 192 to absolve her debt is “clearly nonsense”). 4 Plaintiff has not submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis on the appropriate form 5 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, nor does his reply letter satisfy the requirements of that section. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 7 8 The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff the attached form for application to proceed in forma pauperis for a prisoner; 2. 9 Within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall submit the 10 completed and signed application to proceed in forma pauperis for a prisoner, or in the alternative, pay 11 the $400.00 filing fee for this action; and 3. 12 Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: /s/ Barbara April 5, 2017 A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?