Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01387/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01387-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO JIMENEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, 

Defendant.

No. 2:22–cv–01387–MCE–KJN 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DENY PLAINTIFF’S IFP REQUEST. 

(ECF No. 2.) 

Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel in this action, requests leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”).1

 (ECF No. 2.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing the commencement of 

an action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person who is unable to pay such fees). 

The affidavit in support of the motion indicates plaintiff has a semi-annual income of 

approximately $32,700 i.e., $65,400 annually, has $4,000 in liquid assets, and has $25,000 in a 

401k and $800.00 in stock. (See ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff has monthly expenses of approximately 

$3,050 plus $50,000 in outstanding loans (though it is unclear how much plaintiff pays on these 

loans per month). (See ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s affidavit names two children who rely on him for 

support. According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the current 

poverty guideline for a household of 3 (not residing in Alaska or Hawaii) is $23,030. See

1

 Actions where a party proceeds without counsel are referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

Case 2:22-cv-01387-MCE-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/11/22 Page 1 of 3
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 

2

https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines. As plaintiff’s gross household income is almost 300% of 

the 2021 poverty guideline, the court cannot find plaintiff unable to pay. To be sure, the court is 

sympathetic to the fact that plaintiff does not have a large income, and that plaintiff also has 

several expenses with which to contend. However, numerous litigants in this court have 

significant monthly expenditures, and have to make difficult choices as to which expenses to 

incur, which expenses to reduce or eliminate, and how to apportion their income between such 

expenses and litigating an action in federal court. Such difficulties in themselves do not amount 

to indigency. Thus, the court recommends plaintiff’s IFP motion be denied. See Tripati v. Rison, 

847 F.2d 548, 548-49 (9th Cir. 1988) (absent consent of all parties, magistrate judge lacks 

authority to issue dispositive order denying in forma pauperis status). Presently, a filing fee of 

$402.00 is required to commence a civil action in this court. 

However, based on the information provided by plaintiff, it is clear that a one-time 

$402.00 payment may represent a significant strain on his monthly budget. Therefore, the court 

finds it appropriate to allow for monthly payments of $80.00 until the $402.00 filing fee is 

satisfied. Upon receipt of the first installment, the clerk of court would be ordered to issue the 

appropriate service orders. 

Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS: 

1. Plaintiff’s IFP request (ECF No. 2) be DENIED;

2. Plaintiff be granted leave to satisfy the filing fee in $80 installments, beginning

November 1, 2022 (or sooner if plaintiff wishes), and allow for the clerk to issue a

summons after the first installment is received.

3. Plaintiff be warned that failure to satisfy the full filing fee according to the payment

schedule (OR) by November 1, 2022 may result in dismissal under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(b)

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to 

the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). No objections period is required for 

IFP denials. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended (Sept. 9, 

////

Case 2:22-cv-01387-MCE-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/11/22 Page 2 of 3
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

3

1998) (“[Plaintiff] was not entitled to file written objections to the magistrate judge's 

recommendation that [his] application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.”)

Dated: October 11, 2022

/ jime.1387

Case 2:22-cv-01387-MCE-KJN Document 4 Filed 10/11/22 Page 3 of 3