(PC) Hammler v. Zydus Pharmacy et al

Filing 12

ORDER Disregarding 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time; ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Assign a District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 10 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/2/2021. Referred to Unassigned DJ. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ZYDUS PHARMACY, et al., Defendants. 15 Case No. 1:21-cv-00343-JLT (PC) ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 9) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. 10) 16 14-DAY DEADLINE 17 Clerk of the Court to Assign a District Judge 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 20 § 1915.1 (Doc. 10.) The certified trust account statement attached to his motion indicates that 21 Plaintiff has $1,830.45 in his inmate trust account. (Id. at 4.) This is more than enough to pay the 22 $402 filing fee for this action in full. Proceeding “in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 23 24 116 (9th Cir. 1965). While a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis, 25 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948), “‘the same even-handed 26 1 27 28 Plaintiff concurrently filed a motion for an extension of time to file his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 9.) Because Plaintiff filed his motion to proceed IFP (Doc. 10) within the time previously provided by the Court (see Doc. 7), his motion for an extension of time is unnecessary. The Court therefore DISREGARDS the motion for an extension (Doc. 9). 1 care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public 2 expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole 3 or in material part, to pull his own oar,’” Doe v. Educ. Enrichment Sys., No. 15-cv-2628-MMA- 4 MDD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173063, *2 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 5 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984)). 6 Plaintiff has more than enough funds to pay the filing fee for this action in full. 7 Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 10) 8 be DENIED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to this action. 9 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 10 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of 11 service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 12 Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 13 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 14 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 15 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 2, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?