Gradford v. Lignoski, et al.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 2 , 6 and DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/1/2017. (Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WILLIAM J. GRADFORD,
LIGNOSKI, et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00792-JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and
DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT
(Docs. 2, 6)
Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. Plaintiff’s motion
indicates that he receives “SSI, $937.00 monthly, last received Dec. 1, 2016.” (Doc. 2, p. 1.)
Further, the certificate from the authorized officer at the institution of his incarceration indicates
that during the six months prior to Plaintiff filing this action, the average monthly deposits to his
trust account was $302.45. (Id., p. 2.) Thus, on June 13, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to
show cause why his motion to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied since it did not
appear that Plaintiff met the poverty requirements. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff responded to that order by
filing another IFP application indicating that the average monthly deposits to his account during
the prior six months was $279.54. (Doc. 6.) A $20 difference in the average monthly deposits is
insufficient to establish Plaintiff’s poverty.
Proceeding “in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114,
116 (9th Cir. 1965). Though a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP, Adkins v.
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948), “the same even-handed care must
be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense,
either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in
material part, to pull his own oar.” Doe v. Educ. Enrichment Sys., No. 15cv2628-MMA (MDD),
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173063, *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2015) (citing Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586
F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984)). “[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines the allegation of poverty is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). It appears that
Plaintiff has had sufficient funds over the last several months to be required to pay the filing fee
in full to proceed in this action.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED and this
action is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling with prepayment of the filing fee. The Clerk
of the Court is directed to close this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 1, 2017
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?