Quezada v. Sherman et al
Filing
9
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiffs applications to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on June 11, 2018 (Doc. 2) and July 5, 2018 (Doc. 6) be DENIED, that the action be STAYED and that Plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee no later than August 31, 2018, and the stay lifted once he is in receipt of his settlement funds re 2 MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and 6 MOTION to PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;referred to Judge Drozd, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 07/25/18. Objections to F&R due by 8/20/2018 (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ALVARO QUEZADA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
S. SHERMAN, et al.,
15
Defendants.
Case No. 1:18-cv-00797-DAD-JLT (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS
(Docs. 2, 5, 6)
21-DAY DEADLINE
16
17
BACKGROUND
18
19
20
21
Plaintiff has filed two motions to proceed in forma pauperis along with this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. (Docs. 2, 6.) On the second page of both of his motions,
Plaintiff acknowledges that he settled a civil suit in February of this year for the sum of
$20,000.00. Plaintiff indicates that he is awaiting payment of that sum from the State of
22
California, pending the budget. For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that
23
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action be denied, but instead of dismissing
24
this action, Plaintiff be given a lenient deadline to pay the filing fee in full.
25
26
27
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standard
An indigent party may be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis upon
28
1
1
submission of an affidavit showing inability to pay the required fees. 28 USC § 1915(a). The
2
determination as to whether a plaintiff is indigent and therefore unable to pay the filing fee falls
3
within the court’s sound discretion. California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th
4
Cir. 1991) (reversed on other grounds).
5
Proceeding “in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114,
6
116 (9th Cir. 1965). The Court must exercise care “to assure that federal funds are not
7
squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a
8
suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v.
9
Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984), citing Brewster v. North American Van Lines,
10
Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). “If an applicant has the wherewithal to pay court costs,
11
or some part thereof, without depriving himself and his dependents (if any there be) of the
12
necessities of life, then he should be required, in the First Circuit’s phrase, to ‘put his money
13
where his mouth is.’” Williams v. Latins, 877 F.2d 65 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming district court
14
denial of in forma pauperis where in past 12 months, plaintiff received a sum of $5,000 settling a
15
civil action and no indication it was unavailable to plaintiff) (citing, Temple, 586 F.Supp. at
16
851(quoting In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 1298 (1st Cir. 1971) (per curiam)).
17
Though not in his possession at the time he filed this action, Plaintiff honestly and
18
candidly admits that he recently settled a civil action for $20,000.00 and is awaiting payment
19
from the State of California. Though Plaintiff is not currently in possession of these funds, he
20
should receive them in approximately another 2-3 months. Thus, Plaintiff’s applications to
21
proceed in forma pauperis should be denied, but rather than being dismissed, Plaintiff should be
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
granted an extension of time to pay the $400.00 filing fee in this action.
The determination whether a party can proceed in forma pauperis is a “matter within the
discretion of the trial court and in civil actions for damages should be allowed only in exceptional
circumstances.” Weller v. Dickinson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963); see also Franklin v.
Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (“court permission to proceed in forma pauperis is
itself a matter of privilege and not right; denial of in forma pauperis status does not violate the
applicant’s right to due process”). Plaintiff’s pending receipt of a significant settlement sum does
2
1
not show the exceptional circumstances necessary to grant his applications to proceed in forma
2
pauperis.
RECOMMENDATION
3
4
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma
5
pauperis, filed on June 11, 2018 (Doc. 2) and July 5, 2018 (Doc. 6) be DENIED, that the action
6
be STAYED and that Plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee no later than August 31,
7
2018, and the stay lifted once he is in receipt of his settlement funds.
8
9
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21
10
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
11
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
12
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is informed that failure to file objections within the
13
specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,
14
839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
Dated:
July 25, 2018
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?