Whitsitt v. West Valley Staffing Group et al

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with the instant action, plaintiff must, no later than May 22, 2017, pay the filing fee to the Clerk of Court or file a new applicat ion to proceed IFP that clarifies each of the inconsistencies. Any opposition/objection thereto shall be filed no later than ten days thereafter. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 05/08/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/8/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WILLIAM J. WHITSITT,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

v.
WEST VALLEY STAFFING GROUP, et
al.,

Case No. 16-cv-07234-MMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND APPLICATION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Re: Dkt. No. 16

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Before the Court is plaintiff William J. Whitsitt’s second application to proceed in

14

forma pauperis (“IFP”). On May 3, 2017, defendant Tesla Motors, Inc. (“Tesla”) filed its

15

“Opposition and Objection to Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis Application.”

16

The filing fee to commence a civil action is $400. A district court, however, may

17

authorize a plaintiff to commence a civil action without payment of the filing fee, if the

18

plaintiff demonstrates that he is “unable to pay such fee[] or give security therefor.” See

19

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

20

In his application to proceed IFP, plaintiff, in response to the question “Do you

21

have a bank account?,” checked “Yes,” but, in the space provided for the “Name(s) and

22

Address(es) of bank,” entered “William J. Whitsitt.” (See Application ¶ 7.) Moreover,

23

plaintiff has not written anything in the space provided for the “Present balance(s).” (See

24

id.) As to the next inquiry, “Do you own any cash?,” plaintiff has not checked either “Yes”

25

or “No,” but did write “$200.00” after the word “Amount.” (See id.)

26

Given the above discrepancies, the Court is unable to ascertain whether, in

27

addition to the $200 plaintiff appears to indicate he has in cash, he also has a valid bank

28

account and, if so, what sum is currently held in any such account. Without clarification,

1

the Court cannot determine whether plaintiff “is unable to pay [the filing] fee[] or give

2

security therefor.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

3

Accordingly, the application is hereby DENIED.1

4

If plaintiff wishes to proceed with the instant action, plaintiff must, no later than

5

May 22, 2017, pay the filing fee to the Clerk of Court or file a new application to proceed

6

IFP that clarifies each of the above-referenced inconsistencies. Any opposition/objection

7

thereto shall be filed no later than ten days thereafter.

8
9

If, by May 22, 2017, plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or submitted a sufficient
application to proceed IFP, the Court will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: May 8, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

Given the above ruling, the Court has not addressed herein each of the other
grounds on which Tesla opposes the application. The Court notes, however, that,
contrary to Tesla’s argument, prior cases in which similar, but not the same, claims have
been made need not be listed in response to Question No. 10, nor are IFP applications
ordinarily served on the defendant(s).
2