Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01451/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01451-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1

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

Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

on September 24, 2015. (Docs. 1-2) The Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiffs’ application to proceed 

in forma pauperis, and noted Plaintiffs reported a joint income of $16,500.00. (Doc. 3 at 3, citing Doc.

3 at 2) Based upon the income and monthly expenses reported, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiffs 

failed to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1915, which requires applicants to demonstrate they 

cannot meet court costs and still provide themselves with the necessities of life. (Id.; see also Martinez 

v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004)). Therefore, the Magistrate Judge 

recommended their request be denied.

Plaintiffs were given fourteen days to file any objections to the recommendation that their 

request to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (Doc. 3 at 2) In addition, Plaintiffs were “advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 

order.” (Id., citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 

DONALD CHARLES BLAIR, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01451 - LJO - JLT

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS 

Case 1:15-cv-01451-DAD-JLT Document 7 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014)). To date, no objections have been filed, and Plaintiffs paid the filing fee on 

November 17, 2015. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United 

School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are supported 

by the record and proper analysis. 

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated November 2, 2015 (Doc. 3) are ADOPTED 

IN FULL; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01451-DAD-JLT Document 7 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 2