(PC)Winfield v. Silva et al
Filing
13
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff's 2 7 Motions for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 03/11/2025. Referred to Judge Sherriff; Objections to F&R due within Fourteen-Days. (Deputy Clerk EF)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
MICHAEL JEROME WINFIELD,
9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
SILVA, et al.,
12
15
16
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR LEAVE
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE
DENIED
(ECF No. 2, 7)
Defendants.
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
13
14
Case No. 1:25-cv-00170-KES-BAM (PC)
Plaintiff Michael Jerome Winfield (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff initiated this action on February 11, 2025, together with an unsigned motion to
17
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Plaintiff filed a signed
18
motion to proceed in forma pauperis on March 3, 2025 and a certified copy of his prison trust
19
account statement on March 11, 2025. (ECF Nos. 7, 12.)
20
Examination of Plaintiff’s trust account statement reveals that Plaintiff is able to afford the
21
costs of this action. Specifically, Plaintiff’s current available balance in his inmate trust account
22
is $28,411.84. (ECF No. 12.) In a declaration filed in support of his motion to proceed in forma
23
pauperis, Plaintiff indicates that he is currently in negotiation with an attorney to represent him in
24
his criminal case, which may require him to exhaust his current balance of $29,882.59 as of
25
February 23, 2025. (ECF No. 7, p. 3.)
26
Despite Plaintiff’s assertions that the entirety of his trust account balance must be used to
27
pay for representation in his criminal action, Plaintiff has not stated specifically how much he
28
must allocate towards this attorney. In addition, review of Plaintiff’s trust account statement
1
1
reveals that since the filing of this action on February 11, 2025, Plaintiff has spent approximately
2
$100.00 on miscellaneous expenses, including kiosk requests, legal copies, legal mail, and sales.
3
(ECF No. 12, p. 2.) Since Plaintiff last reviewed his own trust account balance of $29,882.59,
4
Plaintiff has spent approximately $1,400.00 on similar miscellaneous expenses and voluntary
5
withdrawals, none of which appear to be directed towards payment of legal representation. (Id.)
6
In light of the record before the Court, it appears Plaintiff is more than able to afford the costs of
7
this action, including the $405.00 initial filing fee, without proceeding in forma pauperis.
8
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
9
1. The motions to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF Nos. 2, 7), be DENIED; and
10
2. Plaintiff be ORDERED to pay the $405.00 initial filing fee in full to proceed with this
11
action.
12
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
13
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
14
fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may
15
file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
16
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed
17
fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by CM/ECF document
18
and page number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the
19
15-page limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections
20
within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s
21
factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing
22
Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
23
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
March 11, 2025
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?