Lopez, et al. v. Department of Veteran Affairs

Filing 3

ORDER denying 2 Motion to Proceed IFP, signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/28/17. Within 28 days of the date of this order, plaintiffs shall either (a) pay the applicable filing fee or (b) each file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiffs' failure to either pay the filing fee or file sufficient applications to proceed in forma pauperis by the above deadline will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LOPEZ, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-01474-JAM-KJN (PS)

v.

ORDER

DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN
AFFAIRS,
Defendant.

16
17
18

On July 17, 2017, plaintiffs Robert Lopez and R.G., proceeding without counsel, filed this

19

action.1 (ECF No. 1.) Simultaneously, plaintiff Robert Lopez requested leave to proceed in

20

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.) In his affidavit, Mr. Lopez attests

21

that his gross monthly income is $800, including $400.00 for child support. (Id.)

22

Pursuant to federal statute, a filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil action

23

in federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). In addition, a $50.00 general administrative fee for

24

civil cases must be paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b). The court may authorize the commencement of an

25

action “without prepayment of fees or security therefor” by a person that is unable to pay such

26

fees or provide security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

27
28

1

This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21).
1

1

While it appears that R.G. may be Mr. Lopez’s child because they use the same address in

2

the complaint (ECF No. 1), plaintiffs have failed to clearly explain their relationship. In his

3

affidavit, Mr. Lopez does not list any dependents. (See ECF No. 2 at 2.) Additionally, while the

4

way R.G. is named by his or her initials suggests that R.G. is a minor, there is no other indication

5

regarding R.G.’s identity or age. Furthermore, R.G. has not requested leave to proceed in forma

6

pauperis. Thus, plaintiffs have made an inadequate showing of indigency. See Alexander v.

7

Carson Adult High Sch., 9 F.3d 1448 (9th Cir. 1993); California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939

8

F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991); Stehouwer v. Hennessey, 841 F. Supp. 316, (N.D. Cal. 1994).

9
10
11
12

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Mr. Lopez’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. Within 28 days of the date of this order, plaintiffs shall either (a) pay the

13

applicable filing fee or (b) each file an application to proceed in forma pauperis

14

that adequately demonstrates that each plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee.

15

Plaintiffs’ failure to either pay the filing fee or file sufficient applications to

16

proceed in forma pauperis by the above deadline will result in a recommendation

17

that the action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 28, 2017

20
21
14/ps.17.1474.lopez v. va.IFP denial

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2