Rosamanda Flores v. The City of Concord, et al

Filing 15

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying 6 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and finding as moot 11 Report and Recommendation. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2016)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

ROSAMANDA FLORES,
Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9

v.
THE CITY OF CONCORD,

Case No. 15-cv-05244-TEH
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

Defendant.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff Rosamanda Flores initially requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis

12

when she filed her complaint on November 16, 2015. Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore,

13

who was then presiding over the case, denied this request because Flores failed to answer

14

three questions in the application. The magistrate judge also noted that it “appears that

15

other parts of Plaintiff’s application may be incomplete, as she claims to have limited

16

financial resources, does not indicate whether she has any cash on hand, yet states that her

17

monthly expenses include $1,220 for rent, $200 for food, and $150 for utilities.” Nov. 20,

18

2015 Order at 1 (ECF No. 5). Flores was granted leave to file a second application by

19

December 21, 2015.

20

Flores filed her second application three days late, on December 24, 2015. This

21

application contradicted the first application by changing all monthly expenses to $0. It

22

also continued to fail to answer the question of whether Flores has any cash on hand.

23

Flores subsequently declined to proceed before a magistrate judge, and the case was

24

reassigned to this Court with a report and recommendation that the Court “defer ruling on

25

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis until Plaintiff files a declaration

26

explaining the discrepancies between the two applications she submitted in this case.”

27

Feb. 4, 2016 R. & R. at 5 (ECF No. 11). Flores filed such a declaration on February 17,

28

2016, stating that her “domestic partner pays for our rent, food and utilities because we

1

live together,” and that Flores personally pays nothing for those items. Feb. 17, 2016

2

Flores Decl. ¶¶ 3-4 (ECF No. 14).

3

Flores does not state whether her “domestic partner” is a registered domestic partner

4

such that Flores would have an interest in her partner’s income and assets under

5

California’s community property laws. In addition, Flores has still failed to answer the

6

question of whether she has any cash on hand. Moreover, this Court notes another

7

discrepancy in her initial and second applications: On both applications, she claimed not

8

to have received any money from a business or profession within the past twelve months in

9

her response to Question 2a, but she stated that she last received wages in April 2015 – i.e.,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

within the twelve-month period – in response to Question 1.
Given these discrepancies, the Court cannot find that Flores “is unable to pay

12

[court] fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, her

13

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and the Court finds the

14

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to be moot.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: 02/24/16

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2