Perez v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 14

ORDER 9 ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 2 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/10/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

JOSE PEREZ,

5
6

No. C 12-0788 CW

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

v.

7

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, et al.,

8

Defendants.

9

________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Plaintiff Jose Perez files an application for leave to

12

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).

13

assigned to a magistrate judge who determined that it was

14

incomplete because Plaintiff merely listed the amount of his

15

mortgage, not the monthly payments.

16

magistrate judge issued an order for Plaintiff to submit

17

additional financial information by March 9, 2012.

18

failed to file any additional information.

19

magistrate judge issued an order to show cause for Plaintiff to

20

submit, no later than March 26, 2012, the requested information

21

and a declaration explaining why he did not respond to the Court's

22

March 1, 2012 order.

23

judge stated that Plaintiff's "failure to respond will result in

24

the denial of his application to proceed in forma pauperis."

25

Plaintiff failed to respond to the order to show cause.

26

Plaintiff's IFP application was

On March 1, 2012, the

Plaintiff

On March 14, 2012, the

In the order to show cause, the magistrate

On April 10, 2012, the magistrate judge wrote a report and

27

recommendation that Plaintiff's IFP application be denied without

28

prejudice because the information he supplied was insufficient to

1

evaluate how much he owes on his mortgage and because he failed to

2

file a response to the order requiring supplemental information or

3

to the order to show cause.

4

reassigned to the undersigned district judge.

5

On April 11, 2012, the case was

The Court has reviewed the magistrate judge's order and finds

6

that it is well-reasoned and correctly decided.

7

Court adopts the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge

8

and denies without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for leave to

9

proceed IFP.

Therefore, the

If Plaintiff re-files his IFP application, he must

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

submit, within seven days from the date of this order, the

11

information required by the magistrate judge.

12

Plaintiff may re-file his complaint with the filing fee.

13

Plaintiff re-files it as a paid complaint, the filing fee of

14

$350.00 must be paid no later than seven days from the date of

15

this order.

16

dismissal of the complaint without prejudice.

Alternatively,
If

Failure to take either action will result in the

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: 5/10/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2