Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01783/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01783-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM J. GRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIEXIERA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:19-cv-01783-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE AND GRANTING MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docs. 2, 4)

On December 23, 2019, Plaintiff William J. Gradford filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. 2.) In his motion, Plaintiff states that he 

received a $3,000 settlement in 2019, which is significantly more than the $400 filing fee in this 

action. (Id.) Therefore, the Court issued Plaintiff an order to show cause (OSC) why his motion to 

proceed IFP should not be denied. (Doc. 4.)

Plaintiff responded to the OSC on January 6, 2020. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff states that he

received the settlement approximately 7 months ago and the funds were “long ago ... depleted.” 

(Id. at 5.) Plaintiff further states that he has not had a steady income and has been homeless since 

being released from prison in November of 2018. (Id. at 3, 5.)

The Court notes that Plaintiff has not been incarcerated for over a year. Although a 

plaintiff need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP, he must demonstrate that he cannot pay 

Case 1:19-cv-01783-DAD-SKO Document 8 Filed 01/10/20 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

the filing fee and “still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” 

Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). A person who is incarcerated is provided with life’s necessities by the state and 

taxpayers. Here, however, since his release from prison in 2018, Plaintiff has been responsible 

for his life’s necessities.

In general, the Court may consider a plaintiff’s “economic choices about how to spend his 

money.” Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Lumbert v. Illinois Dep't 

of Corr., 827 F.2d 257, 260 (7th Cir. 1987) (“If ... inmate thinks that a more worthwhile use of 

his funds would be to buy peanuts and candy ... than to file a civil rights suit, he has 

demonstrated an implied evaluation of the suit that the district court is entitled to honor.”). Here, 

however, given the length of time since Plaintiff’s settlement and release from prison, and given

the fact of Plaintiff’s homelessness, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has chosen to pay for 

unessential items instead of paying the filing fee in this action. Rather, in his IFP motion and in 

response to the Court’s OSC, Plaintiff shows that he would need to choose between paying the 

filing fee and paying for life’s necessities. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339.

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff makes the requisite showing 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Accordingly, the Court DISCHARGES the order to show cause, (Doc. 

4), and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 2.)

The Court advises Plaintiff that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must 

conduct an initial review of every complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma 

pauperis to determine whether it is legally sufficient. The Court must dismiss a complaint or 

portion thereof if the Court determines that the complaint is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails 

to state a claim, the Court may grant leave to amend if the deficiencies can be cured. The Court 

will screen Plaintiff’s complaint in due course.

If appropriate after the case has been screened, the Clerk of the Court will provide 

Plaintiff with the requisite forms and instructions to request the assistance of the United States 

Case 1:19-cv-01783-DAD-SKO Document 8 Filed 01/10/20 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

Marshal in serving Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01783-DAD-SKO Document 8 Filed 01/10/20 Page 3 of 3