Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01504/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01504-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DURRELL ANTHONY PUCKETT, 

Plaintiff,

v.

JEROME J. MACK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01504-JLT (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docs. 2, 5, 8)

21-DAY DEADLINE

CLERK TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis along with this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On November 13, 2018, an order issued for Plaintiff to show cause 

(“OSC”) why his application to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied. (Doc. 8.) 

Plaintiff has not responded to the OSC. 

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

An indigent party may be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis upon 

submission of an affidavit showing inability to pay the required fees. 28 USC § 1915(a). The 

determination as to whether a plaintiff is indigent and therefore unable to pay the filing fee falls 

within the court’s sound discretion. California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th 

Case 1:18-cv-01504-JLT-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/17/18 Page 1 of 4
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

Cir. 1991) (reversed on other grounds).

“The trial court must be careful to avoid construing the statute so narrowly that a litigant is 

presented with a Hobson’s choice between eschewing a potentially meritorious claim or foregoing 

life’s plain necessities.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984), citing 

Potnick v. Eastern State Hospital, 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983) (per curiam); Carson v. 

Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). “But, the same even-handed care must be employed to 

assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous 

claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull 

his own oar.” Temple, 586 F. Supp. at 850, citing Brewster v. North American Van Lines, Inc., 

461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). 

The statement report of Plaintiff’s inmate account provided by the CDCR indicates that 

less than a month prior to filing this action, Plaintiff had over $500 that could have been used to 

pay the filing fee. Instead, Plaintiff spent nearly $400 the same day he signed the Complaint and 

his application to proceed in forma pauperis, which was the day before he filed this action.

Proceeding “in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 

116 (9th Cir. 1965). While a party need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP, Adkins v. E.I. 

DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948), “the same even-handed care must be 

employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, either 

frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material 

part, to pull his own oar.” Doe v. Educ. Enrichment Sys., No. 15cv2628-MMA (MDD), 2015 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 173063, *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2015) (citing Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 

850 (D.R.I. 1984)). 

“If an applicant has the wherewithal to pay court costs, or some part thereof, without 

depriving himself and his dependents (if any there be) of the necessities of life, then he should be 

required, in the First Circuit’s phrase, to ‘put his money where his mouth is.’” Williams v. Latins, 

877 F.2d 65 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming district court denial of in forma pauperis where in past 12 

months, plaintiff received a sum of $5,000 settling a civil action and no indication it was 

unavailable to plaintiff) (citing, Temple, 586 F.Supp. at 851(quoting In re Stump, 449 F.2d 1297, 

Case 1:18-cv-01504-JLT-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/17/18 Page 2 of 4
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

1298 (1st Cir. 1971) (per curiam)).

To proceed in forma pauperis, a plaintiff need not demonstrate that he is completely 

destitute, but his poverty must prevent him from paying the filing fee and providing his dependents 

with the necessities of life. See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 

(1948). A “‘showing of something more than mere hardship must be made.’” Nastrom v. New 

Century Mortg. Corp., No. 11-cv-1998, 2011 WL 7031499, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2011) 

(quoting Martin v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 221 F.Supp. 757, 759 (W.D. La.1963)), report and 

recommendation adopted by, 2012 WL 116563 (E.D. Cal. Jan.12, 2012). Plaintiff has not shown 

that he has any dependents who would have been deprived of the necessities of life if he paid the 

filing fee and, since Plaintiff is currently incarcerated, the State of California is paying for his 

necessities of daily life. Williams, 877 F.2d 65.

The Court may consider the economic priority Plaintiff placed on the use of money in his 

trust account. See Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Alexander v. 

Carson Adult High School, 9 F.3d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1993). A district court is entitled to honor 

an inmate’s decision of other use of available funds which the inmate considered more worthwhile 

than payment of a federal court’s filing fee. See Olivares, at 112, (quoting Lumbert v. Illinois 

Department of Corrections, 827 F.2d 257, 260 (7th Cir. 1987) (Noting peanut and candy 

“comforts” the plaintiff purchased in the prison commissary; “If the inmate thinks 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.”).) 

Plaintiff clearly prioritized various purchases over his obligation to pay the filing fee in this action. 

The determination whether a party can proceed in forma pauperis is a “matter within the 

discretion of the trial court and in civil actions for damages should be allowed only in exceptional 

circumstances.” Weller v. Dickinson, 314 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1963); see also Franklin v. 

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (“court permission to proceed in forma pauperis is 

itself a matter of privilege and not right; denial of in forma pauperis status does not violate the 

applicant’s right to due process”). The day Plaintiff signed the Complaint and the application to 

proceed in forma pauperis, which was the day before he filed this action, Plaintiff spent nearly 

Case 1:18-cv-01504-JLT-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/17/18 Page 3 of 4
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

4

$400 elsewhere. Thus, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied and 

this action should be dismissed without prejudice to refiling on prepayment of the filing fee. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis, filed on July 11, 2018 (Doc. 2), be DENIED and that the action be dismissed without 

prejudice to refiling on prepayment of the filing fee. The Clerk of the Court is directed to 

randomly assign a district judge to this action. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21 days 

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is informed that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2018 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01504-JLT-CDB Document 9 Filed 12/17/18 Page 4 of 4