Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02815/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02815-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 245
Nature of Suit: Real Property Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHALLA ALFARO BRITTANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

7th & H ST. LOFTS, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-2815 MCE AC (PS) 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 2. 

 Plaintiff’s IFP application does not make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

According to the application, plaintiff received money from all the sources listed on the form, 

including “Social Security Disability and other money,” during the past 12 months. ECF No. 2 

at 1 ¶ 3. However, plaintiff fails to disclose “the amount received and what you expect you will 

continue to receive.” See id. In addition, the application indicates that plaintiff owns “real estate, 

stocks, bonds, securities, other financial instruments, automobiles or any other thing of value.” 

Id. at 2 ¶ 5. However, plaintiff does not “describe the property and state its value,” as required. 

Instead, she states simply, “I own some property.” Finally, plaintiff lists dependents, but fails to 

“indicate how much you contribute to their support.” See id. ¶ 6. 

Case 2:16-cv-02815-MCE-AC Document 3 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

 Plaintiff’s application will not be granted unless she properly completes each entry on the 

form.1 To assist plaintiff, an updated version of the IFP application is annexed to this order.

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without prejudice to its 

renewal with all entries on the form completed. 

 2. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this order to renew the IFP application in 

proper form, or to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely renew the IFP in 

proper form, or to pay the filing fee, may result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed. 

DATED: December 12, 2016 

 

1

 Plaintiff has previously been advised, in other cases, that her failure to properly complete the 

IFP application will result in denial of the application. See Brittany v. Child Support Service 

Sacramento, 2:16-cv-1347 GEB AC, ECF No. 3 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2016); Brittany v. Wells 

Fargo Bank NA, 2:16-cv-1351 TLN CKD, ECF No. 3 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2016); Brittany v. 

Archuleta Family Reunion, 2:16-cv-01468 TLN GGH, ECF No. 4 (E.D. Cal. August 15, 2016). 

Case 2:16-cv-02815-MCE-AC Document 3 Filed 12/12/16 Page 2 of 2