Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02007/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02007-0/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

08cv2007

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYLE J. HITCHCOCK,

Plaintiff,

v.

STAN STANLEY, et al.,

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv2007-L(NLS)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

CORRECTED INFORMATION

Plaintiff Lyle J. Hitchcock, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint together with

a Motion and Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury in Support of Motion to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis (“IFP Motion”). On October 31, 2008, the court denied the IFP Motion because

Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the IFP Motion and his declaration in support of motion for

appointment of counsel were inconsistent. In support of his request for appointment of counsel

Plaintiff declared that as recently as October 15, 2008 he was employed and earned a significant

income, whereas in support of his IFP Motion he declared he was last employed in 2002. 

Pursuant to the October 31 order, Plaintiff filed corrected information stating, based on

his October 29, 2008 declaration in support of the IFP Motion, that he was last employed in

October 2002. However, Plaintiff did not explain the discrepancy between his October 29

declaration in support of the IFP Motion and his declaration of the same date in support of his

request for appointment of counsel, and did not indicate whether his declaration in support of the

request for appointment of counsel was incorrect. Furthermore, the corrected information is not

Case 3:08-cv-02007-L-NLS Document 6 Filed 12/05/08 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 08cv2007

stated under oath. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s corrected information is insufficient to support

reopening this case and granting him IFP status.

Pursuant to this order, Plaintiff is granted 60 days’ leave from the date this order is

stamped filed to pay the filing fee required to maintain this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914,

or to file another IFP motion. If Plaintiff files another IFP motion, he must accompany it with a

declaration under oath explaining the discrepancy between his two previously filed declarations

and a statement indicating which information he had previously provided under oath was

incorrect. IF PLAINTIFF CHOOSES TO FILE ANOTHER IFP MOTION, HE MUST

ATTACH A COPY OF THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 5, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-02007-L-NLS Document 6 Filed 12/05/08 Page 2 of 2