Foreman et al v. District Attorney of Bakersfield
ORDER WITHDRAWING 7 Findings and Recommendations and Directing Plaintiff to File an Amended Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/28/2022. 30-Day Deadline. (Attachments: # 1 IFP Application Non-Prisoner)(Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TREVON FOREMAN and LOTISHA
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF
Case No. 1:22-cv-00581-DAD-BAK (SKO)
ORDER WITHDRAWING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DIRECTING
PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
(Docs. 4, 6, 7)
Plaintiffs Trevon Foreman and Lotisha Davidson (“Plaintiffs”) are proceeding pro se in this
20 action. Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendant District Attorney of Bakersfield on May
21 16, 2022. (Doc. 1.) On that same date, Plaintiff Foreman, a state prisoner, filed an application to
22 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) without prepayment of fees. (Doc. 2.)
On May 20, 2022, the undersigned issued an order finding that Plaintiff Foreman failed to
24 submit to the Court a certified copy of his trust fund account statement, providing him another IFP
25 application form, and directing him to file an amended IFP application that corrects the identified
26 deficiencies within thirty days. (Doc. 4.)
Having received no response from Plaintiff Foreman, the undersigned issued an order to
28 show cause (“OSC”) why he should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s order
1 and for his failure to prosecute this action.1 (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff Foreman failed to file a response to
2 the OSC.
On July 22, 2022, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations that Plaintiff
4 Foreman be dismissed from this case without prejudice for his failure to obey the Court’s orders and
5 to prosecute this action. (Doc. 7.) The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff
6 Foreman and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21)
7 days after service. (See id.)
On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff Foreman filed a certified copy of his prisoner trust account (Doc.
9 8), but neglected to file an amended IFP application as previously ordered. Accordingly, it is
10 HEREBY ORDERED that:
The findings and recommendations (Doc. 7) are WITHDRAWN;
The Clerk of Court shall attach to this order a form application to proceed without
prepayment of fees and affidavit;
Within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff Foreman shall
complete, sign, and file the attached application.2 Alternatively, Plaintiff Foreman
may pay the $402.00 filing fee for this action. Failure to comply with this order
will result in the recommendation that Plaintiff Foreman be dismissed from this
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
July 28, 2022
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Lotisha Davidson filed her own application to proceed in forma pauperis, but it contains information related
to only her finances. (See Doc. 5.) “Where there are multiple plaintiffs in a single action, the plaintiffs may not proceed
in forma pauperis unless all of them demonstrate inability to pay the filing fee.” Darden v. Indymac Bancorp, Inc., No.
CIV S-09-2970 JAM DAD, 2009 WL 5206637, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2009) (emphasis added); see also Anderson
v. California, No. 10 CV 2216 MMA (AJB), 2010 WL 4316996, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2010) (“[A]lthough only one
filing fee needs to be paid per case, if multiple plaintiffs seek to proceed in forma pauperis, each plaintiff must qualify
for IFP status.”).
There is no need for Plaintiff Foreman to re-file his prisoner trust account statement.
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?