Spitters v. Psynergy et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING IFP APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/9/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Application to Proceed IFP)(pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2019)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 THOMAS HEATON SPITTERS, 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 18-cv-03639-PJH Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING IFP APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE PSYNERGY, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 12, 13 Defendants. 12 13 14 On June 18, 2018, plaintiff Thomas Spitters made a filing that opened this civil 15 action. Dkt. 1. On the same day, plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma 16 pauperis (“IFP”), which would allow him to proceed with this action without prepaying fees 17 or costs. Dkt. 2. A plaintiff seeking to proceed in forma pauperis “must allege poverty 18 with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 19 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s application did 20 not provide sufficient information to grant the application. For example, he wrote that his 21 income and saved cash were “de minimus.” Dkt. 2 at 1–2. His other descriptions were 22 similarly vague, including that he had “some” personal property and that “[v]arious 23 immediate and extended family, and their associated parties and individuals” depended 24 on him for support. Dkt. 2 at 2. 25 On September 10, 2018 this court denied plaintiff’s IFP application and adopted 26 the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to dismiss the complaint with leave 27 to amend. Dkt. 8. Plaintiff was given a deadline of October 5, 2018 to file an amended 28 IFP application and complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an amended IFP application, nor has 1 he paid the filing fee. Rather, he has included in two separate filings statements 2 indicating that he would prefer not to disclose his financial condition to the court. Dkt. 12 3 at 1 (“plaintiff . . . wishes his pauperized financial condition to remain . . . confidential, and 4 secret”); Dkt. 13 at 5 (“plaintiff again states his overall desire and right to have his 5 pauperized finances remain private and confidential; and honorably and humbly demands 6 again before the court that defendants in these cases pay all court fees and costs and 7 expenditures of said cases, including court and clerk fees . . . . These demands have 8 been stated previously and repeatedly, and the court has chosen not to address them, 9 ignored them in fact.”). Plaintiff need not disclose his financial condition to proceed with this action. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Plaintiff has two options if he wishes to litigate this case. He must either (1) file a new, 12 complete IFP application disclosing all requested information (the required application is 13 attached to this order)1; or (2) pay the entire filing fee of $400.00 and serve the summons 14 and complaint (and any amendments and attachments), as well as scheduling orders and 15 other documents specified by the Clerk, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil 16 Procedure. Spitters must complete one of those two options by February 15, 2019, or 17 the complaint will remain dismissed without prejudice and this action will be closed. IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: January 9, 2019 __________________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The application is also available on the district’s website: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. The direct link to the application is https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/filelibrary/15/Application%20to%20Proceed%20In%20For ma%20Pauperisnon-prisoner.pdf (PDF format) or https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/filelibrary/763/Application-to-Proceed-In-Forma-Pauperisnon-.docx (MS Word format). 2 1

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?