Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00585/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00585-1/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

CORNEL JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

TYSON POUGE,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00585-JLT-EPG (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY HIS IFP APPLICATION 

SHOULD NOT BE DENIED

(ECF No. 6)

RESPONSE DUE BY NO LATER THAN 

JULY 12, 2024

Plaintiff Cornel Jackson is a pro se inmate at the Madera County Jail in this civil rights 

case filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 16, 2024. (ECF No. 1). This case is before the Court on 

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), filed on June 7, 2024. (ECF No. 6). For 

the reasons given below, the Court will require Plaintiff to show cause why his IFP application 

should not be denied. 

The Court normally requires a $405 filing fee for a civil action. However, a federal 

statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, permits a plaintiff to commence a lawsuit without prepaying a filing 

fee. This statute requires “an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner 

possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” § 1915(a)(1). In 

addition to filing an affidavit, a prisoner “shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account 

statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately 

preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of 

each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.” § 1915(a)(2). 

In reviewing an IFP application, a court is “entitled to consider [a plaintiff’s] own 

Case 1:24-cv-00585-JLT-EPG Document 7 Filed 06/13/24 Page 1 of 3
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

economic choices about how to spend his money.” Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th 

Cir. 1995). For example, the Court can consider that a plaintiff prisoner thought it more 

worthwhile to spend his money on commissary items than to pay the filing fee for his civil rights 

suit. Id. Likewise, another court has concluded that a “Plaintiff’s decision to give his income 

away, while seemingly admirable and certainly within his prerogative, should not consequently 

require the Court and taxpayers to bear the burden of paying Plaintiff's filing fee.” Strojnik v. 

Panera Bread Co., No. 1:22-CV-00682-JLT-BAK (SAB), 2022 WL 2287274, at *8 (E.D. Cal. 

June 24, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2022). 

With these standards in mind, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed the standard IFP 

application. (ECF No. 6). He checks the box indicating that he is employed, but for the space 

asking for the amount of his pay, he provides no dollar amount; rather, he writes “commis[s]ary” 

in the space. (Id. at 1). He also indicates that he receives money from other sources, writing “that 

he received a settlement of $4,000, which was signed over to his brother to be distributed to his 

children.” (Id., minor alterations).

In short, it appears that, rather than use his pay from his employment for the filing fee in 

this case, Plaintiff intends to spend his money on the commissary. Likewise, rather than spend a 

portion of his $4,000 settlement on the filing fee, Plaintiff chose to give it all to his family. 

Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why his IFP application should 

not be denied given that he has chosen to spend or give away his money rather than pay the filing 

fee.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. By no later than July 12, 2024, Plaintiff shall file a response to this order, showing cause 

why his IFP application should not be denied.

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 1:24-cv-00585-JLT-EPG Document 7 Filed 06/13/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this order, he is advised that this case may be 

dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00585-JLT-EPG Document 7 Filed 06/13/24 Page 3 of 3