Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02534/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02534-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

W.D. FLIENT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

JAIL MEDICAL SERVICES,

Defendant

 /

No. C-06-2534 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

PAY FILING FEE 

Before the Court is plaintiff W.D. Flient’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,

filed April 6, 2006.

By order filed April 14, 2006, the Court identified several inconsistences in plaintiff’s

application and found that, in light thereof, the Court could not conclude plaintiff was unable

to pay the filing fee. The Court did, however, afford plaintiff the opportunity to file, no later

than April 28, 2006, a supplemental declaration to explain the inconsistencies, and stated

that “[i]f plaintiff fails to file a supplemental declaration within the time provided, or if plaintiff

timely files a supplemental declaration but fails to adequately explain therein his financial

circumstances, the Court will deny the application.” (See Order, filed April 14, 2006, at 2.)

To date, plaintiff has not filed a supplemental declaration. Rather, on April 24, 2006,

plaintiff filed a letter, dated April 21, 2006 and addressed to the Clerk, in which he responds

to the Court’s April 14, 2006 order. The letter is not verified, and therefore is not a

declaration. For that reason alone, plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s April 14,
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

Although plaintiff’s letter fails to indicate the amount he is receiving from the state, documents attached to the letter appear to indicate he receives a net payment of $602

every fourteen days.

2

2006 order. In any event, the letter fails to adequately explain the inconsistencies identified

in the Court’s April 14, 2006 order. Indeed, the letter raises additional questions,

specifically, questions as to the veracity of plaintiff’s statements.

In particular, in his original application, plaintiff stated under penalty of perjury that,

as of April 4, 2006, he had not received any money from a government source during the

past twelve months, (see Appl. ¶ 2), yet, in his letter dated April 21, 2006, plaintiff states

that “for the last 7 months” he has received “disability funds” from the State of California

Employment Development Department. (See Letter at 1.)1 Additionally, although plaintiff

states in his letter that he no longer had a bank account as of June 2005, a document

attached to his application, as well as to the letter, indicates that on July 11, 2005, plaintiff’s

net paycheck was deposited in a bank account.

In sum, plaintiff not only has failed to fully comply with the Court’s April 14, 2006

order, his attempt at compliance has raised more questions about his financial status than it

has answered.

To be entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, a plaintiff must submit a declaration

showing that he is unable to pay the initial filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). For the

reasons stated above, plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby DENIED.

If plaintiff wishes to proceed with the instant action, plaintiff is hereby required to pay

the initial filing fee to the Clerk of the Court no later than June 9, 2006. If plaintiff fails to

pay the filing fee by June 9, 2006, the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge