Preminger v. Principi et al

Filing 272

ORDER DENYING 268 , 270 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND/OR TO WAIVE FILING FEES. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 7/22/2010. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2010)

Preminger v. Principi et al

Doc. 272

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

**E-Filed 7/22/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

STEVEN R. PREMINGER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ERIC SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, et al., Defendants.

Case Number C 04-2012 JF (HRL) ORDER1 DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND/OR TO WAIVE FILING FEES [re: docket nos. 268, 270]

Plaintiffs seek leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. It is unclear whether this application is made on behalf of Plaintiff Steven Preminger, an individual, or on behalf of the Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee ("SCCDCC"), an artificial entity. To the extent that Mr. Preminger seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis, he has not provided information sufficient to determine whether he qualifies for such status. To the extent that the SCCDCC seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it is not a "person" within the meaning of the governing statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 196

This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.

C a s e No. C 04-2012 JF (HRL) O R D E R DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ETC. ( JF L C 2 )

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1993) (holding that only natural persons, and not artificial entities, qualify for treatment in forma pauperis under § 1915). Accordingly, the Court has no choice but to deny Plaintiffs' request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. It appears that Plaintiffs may be requesting a determination that they would be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis if they should file a new lawsuit. Aside from the issues noted above, it would be inappropriate for the Court to grant or deny in forma pauperis status with respect to a lawsuit that has not yet been filed. Plaintiffs correctly note that the Court indicated that it would entertain their applications to proceed in forma pauperis. However, as noted above, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they are entitled to relief under § 1915. Plaintiffs have not cited, and the Court has not discovered, an alternative legal basis for waiving filing fees or any other fees in this action. Finally, it appears that Plaintiffs are requesting leave to file an appeal in this case. All orders in this case are final; Plaintiffs thus do not need to seek leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to proceed in forma pauperis and/or to waive filing fees is DENIED.

DATED: 7/22/2010 __________________________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

2
C a s e No. C 04-2012 JF (HRL) O R D E R DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ETC. ( JF L C 2 )