Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00845/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00845-2/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

HENRY PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEATHER DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

1:24-cv-00845-JLT-EPG (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 

BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, 

DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Henry Perez is confined at Kern County AES Center and is proceeding pro se in 

this civil rights action. Together with his complaint, on July 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2). 

However, the IFP application is not fully completed. Specifically, the portion of the IFP form 

requiring an officer at the place of Plaintiff’s incarceration to certify Plaintiff’s account balance 

and to provide a certified copy of the trust account statement showing transactions for the past six 

months, has not been completed. (Id. at 2). In addition, in the same application, Plaintiff states 

that he contributes $200 per month to support his son, while denying any sources of income or 

cash savings. (Id.)

On July 25, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP without prejudice. 

(ECF No. 4). The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the filing fee, submit a complete IFP 

application with the trust account statement and explanation of the support he is providing, or file 

Case 1:24-cv-00845-JLT-EPG Document 7 Filed 10/16/24 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

a notice explaining the efforts he has made to obtain the required information. (ECF No. 4 at 2). 

Plaintiff has not responded to that Order. 

On September 10, 2024, the Court vacated its earlier Order, and ordered Plaintiff to 

supplement his IFP motion instead. (ECF No. 6). The Court again gave Plaintiff 30 days to either 

pay the filing fee, supplement his original IFP motion with the complete IFP application with the 

trust account statement included as well as the explanation for the support he is providing, or file 

a notice explaining the efforts he has made to obtain the required information. (ECF No. 6 at 2). 

Again, Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s order, and the time to do so has passed. 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914 or to file a completed application to proceed in forma 

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

3. Alternatively, if Plaintiff files a proper in forma pauperis application or pays the filing 

fee within thirty days, this Court will vacate these findings and recommendations.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with 

the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.”

Plaintiff is advised 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, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00845-JLT-EPG Document 7 Filed 10/16/24 Page 2 of 2