Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00263/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00263-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

 This court is ordering reassignment to a District Judge because, absent consent of all

parties, a Magistrate Judge does not have authority to make case-dispositive rulings. See, e.g.,

Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1988).

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

OSCAR HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIRST FRANKLIN LOAN

SERVICES, et al. 

Defendants. _______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 08-263 WDB

ORDER THAT CASE BE

REASSIGNED AND

RECOMMENDATION THAT

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED

AND THAT CASE BE DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On January 15, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Petition along with an Application to

Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Based on the Application,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case be reassigned to a District Judge1

 with

the recommendation that the Application be denied and that the Petition be dismissed. 

The federal in forma pauperis statute, enacted in 1892 and presently codified as 28

U.S.C. § 1915, is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the

federal courts. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 342-343 (1948). 

To this end, § 1915(a) allows a litigant to commence a civil action in federal court in

Case 3:08-cv-00263-TEH Document 4 Filed 02/06/08 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

ORDER, page 2

forma pauperis by filing in good faith an affidavit stating, inter alia, that he is unable to

pay the costs of the lawsuit. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). 

In the present case, Plaintiff states in his Application that he is currently employed,

earning $2100 per month in net pay ($2700 per month in gross pay) and that his monthly

expenses are $1900. Given the amount Plaintiff is able to expend on monthly living

expenses (for example, $300 a month on clothes), and his apparent ability to earn more

than a living wage, Plaintiff does not qualify as an indigent person. See e.g., Adkins v.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948) (holding that IFP affidavit must

demonstrate that person cannot, because of his poverty, provide himself and any

dependents with the necessities of life). Plaintiff should therefore pay the $350 cost of

filing suit, and the Court RECOMMENDS that the Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis be DENIED. 

Moreover, even if the Court granted Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis Application,

Plaintiff would not automatically be entitled to continue to prosecute his Petition. A court

is under a continuing duty to dismiss a case filed without the payment of the filing fee

whenever it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant

who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). A Complaint is

frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Nietzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (found to be superseded on other grounds by reason of adoption of

section 1915(e), which makes dismissal for failure to state a claim mandatory). 

Plaintiff’s Petition is incoherent and fails to state a claim. Accordingly, in addition

to recommending that the in forma pauperis Application be denied, the undersigned also

RECOMMENDS that the case be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

Dated:

____________________________

WAYNE D. BRAZIL. 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-00263-TEH Document 4 Filed 02/06/08 Page 2 of 2