Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01173/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01173-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARRED FARRELL NORMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01173-MMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS; DENYING 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR STAY; 

DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 3

Before the Court are plaintiff's "Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis," filed 

March 4, 2019, and plaintiff's "Motion Requesting a Stay of All Proceedings Before the 

Court," also filed March 4, 2019. Having read and considered said filings, the Court rules 

as follows.

In Norman v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Case No. 18-6658 ("First Action"), a 

prior case filed by plaintiff based on substantially the same allegations as those made in 

the complaint filed in the instant action, plaintiff, on November 1, 2018, filed an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. By order filed November 20, 2018, Magistrate 

Judge Kandis A. Westmore, to whom the First Action was then assigned, denied the 

application, on the ground that plaintiff's wife earned over $10,000 a month. Although 

Magistrate Judge Westmore afforded plaintiff leave to file an amended application in the 

event plaintiff could assert he did not have access to his wife's earnings, plaintiff did not 

file an amended application, nor did he pay the filing fee within the deadline set by this 

Court, to whom the First Action had been reassigned. Accordingly, the Court dismissed 

the First Action without prejudice.

//

Case 3:19-cv-01173-MMC Document 10 Filed 03/08/19 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The application filed in the instant action is materially indistinguishable from the 

application filed in the First Action, and, in particular, plaintiff again acknowledges that his 

wife earns over $10,000 a month.1 The only additional information plaintiff provides is a 

statement that he has "very limited income from his spouse," which statement he makes 

in a separate submission, filed March 4, 2019, titled "[Installment] Plan Agreement." 

Plaintiff fails, however, to identify the amount of such "income from his spouse" or to state 

that he does not have access to any other portion of his wife's earnings, notwithstanding 

such wages appear to be community property. See State Board of Equalization v. Woo, 

82 Cal. App. 4th 481, 483 (2000) (holding "earnings of either the husband or wife 

acquired during the marriage constitute community property").

Accordingly, plaintiff's application is hereby DENIED. If plaintiff wishes to proceed 

with the instant action, plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to pay the $400 filing fee no later 

than April 12, 2019, or, alternatively, to file, no later than April 12, 2019, an amended 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, establishing that, notwithstanding his wife's 

monthly income, he is unable to pay the costs to institute the instant action.

Lastly, plaintiff's motion for a stay of proceedings is hereby DENIED as moot, there 

being no proceedings presently pending.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2019

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

 

1The sole differences between the two applications are that plaintiff states he 

recently withdrew $500 from his "Fidelity" account and that the total cash he has in his 

bank accounts is at present $400, whereas he reported $1100 in his first application.

Case 3:19-cv-01173-MMC Document 10 Filed 03/08/19 Page 2 of 2