(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)

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