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)

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