Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00658/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00658-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK RICHARD O’DELL, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

INYO CO. SHERIFFS DEPT., )

et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-00658-OWW-SMS 

ORDER DEEMING PLAINTIFF’S

DECLARATION TO BE A FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT (DOC. 7)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

REVOKE PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA

PAUPERIS STATUS 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action concerning

alleged civil rights violations. The matter has been referred to

the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local

Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

I. Declaration is Deemed a First Amended Complaint

On June 8, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application

to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered Plaintiff’s original

complaint, filed on May 30, 2006, dismissed with leave to file an

amended complaint no later than thirty days after the date of

service of the order. The order was served on June 8,2006. On

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 08/07/06 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

June 15, 2006, Plaintiff filed a declaration. The Court has

reviewed the declaration and finds that it constitutes a first

amended complaint filed in response to the Court’s order of June

8, 2006. The declaration IS DEEMED to be a first amended

complaint against the only three persons or entities named in it,

namely, the Inyo County Sheriff’s Department, Superior Court

Judge Dean Stout, and Assistant District Attorney Cristensen.

II. Payment of Filing Fee

On July 17, 2006, Plaintiff filed the $350.00 filing fee in

this action.

Title 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(A) provides in part that a court

shall dismiss a case at any time if the court determines that the

allegation of poverty is untrue. Application of this provision is

within the sound discretion of the court. Greaser v. State, Dept.

of Corrections, 145 F.3d 979, 985 (8 Cir. 1998) (citing Cross th

v. General Motors Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8 Cir. 1983).) th

Further, it is recognized that courts have discretion to revoke

the privilege to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees

when it no longer serves its goals. Treff v. Galetka, 74 F.3d

191, 197 (10 Cir. 1996). Federal courts have long been th

authorized to revoke a prisoner’s ability to proceed in forma

pauperis upon determining that the litigant was taking unfair

advantage of IFP procedures. Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596,

603 (6 Cir. 1998); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5 th th

Cir. 1996).

Here, Plaintiff has paid the $350.00 filing fee after having

been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. It thus appears

that Plaintiff was able to pay the filing fee and voluntarily

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 08/07/06 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

paid the fee. It may be concluded that Plaintiff now has the

ability to pay the fees and costs associated with this action.

However, should Plaintiff disagree with this conclusion,

then Plaintiff will have an opportunity to inform the Court of

his position and his present finances by filing objections to the

Court’s recommendation.

Accordingly, it IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s in forma

pauperis status be revoked.

This report and recommendation is submitted to the United

States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after

being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served

by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then

review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 08/07/06 Page 3 of 3