Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00976/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00976-3/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

FANCY MOORE LIPSEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00976-ADA-SAB

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF

TO PAY FILING FEE

(ECF No. 12)

DEADLINE: OCTOBER 5, 2023

Plaintiff Fancy Moore Lipsey filed the complaint in this action on June 23, 2023. (ECF 

No. 2.) Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee in 

this action and instead filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915. (ECF No. 3.) On July 5, 2023, the Court received Plaintiff’s prisoner trust account 

statement from the Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF). (ECF No. 6.) The statement 

provided that as of July 3, 2023, Plaintiff had $20,083.79 in the trust account, and finding the 

available balance in Plaintiff’s account reflected that Plaintiff could pay the $402.00 filing fee 

for this action, on July 6, 2023, the Court issued findings and recommendations that the 

application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (ECF No. 8.) The Court’s recommendation 

specifically stated: 

///

Case 1:23-cv-00976-JLT-GSA Document 13 Filed 09/18/23 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

Should Plaintiff have additional information to provide the Court, 

or should Plaintiff’s available balance change by the time he 

receives this order, he may notify the Court. However, Plaintiff is 

advised that the Court has the authority to consider any reasons 

and circumstances for any change in Plaintiff’s available assets and 

funds. See Collier v. Tatum, 722 F.2d 653, 656 (11th Cir. 1983) 

(district court may consider an unexplained decrease in an inmate’s 

trust account, or whether an inmate’s account has been depleted 

intentionally to avoid court costs).

(ECF No. 8 at 2-3.) 

Plaintiff, still represented by counsel, did not file objections to the findings and 

recommendations within the time period to do so. (ECF No. 11.) On September 5, 2023, the 

District Judge adopted the findings and recommendations and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing 

fee within thirty (30) days of service of the order. (ECF No. 11.) The filing fee is thus due 

October 5, 2023. 

On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a continuance of a proffered deadline to file the in 

forma pauperis application with an original signature. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff’s request 

indicates she filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on or about August 14, 2023, and 

the Court rejected that application on the grounds that it required an original signature.1 Plaintiff 

contends that the Court provided a September 15, 2023, deadline to file the application with an 

original signature. However, the District Judge’s order adopting did not discuss any signing 

deficiency, nor did it include an order to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis to 

submit an original signature by September 15, 2023. (ECF No. 11.) Therefore, it is not clear if 

this request was filed mistakenly in this action. Further, Plaintiff’s instant filings were not 

signed as required pursuant to Local Rule 131(b).

In the Court’s view, Plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee in this action by October 5, 

2023, and has not. (ECF No. 11.) The District Judge’s order expressly stated: “Plaintiff is 

ordered to submit the appropriate filing fee in full no later than thirty (30) days from the date of 

service of this order; and [] Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order will result in 

dismissal of this action.” (ECF No. 11 at 2.) Given the fact Plaintiff is represented by counsel, 

1 The Court notes that a first amended complaint was filed on August 14, 2023, before the date the District Judge 

adopted the findings and recommendations, without a contemporaneously filed application to proceed in forma 

pauperis.

Case 1:23-cv-00976-JLT-GSA Document 13 Filed 09/18/23 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

the previous recommendation based on the trust statement, the District Judge’s order adopting 

that required Plaintiff to pay the filing fee with no order to file an application with an original 

signature by September 15, 2023, the Court shall deny Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time

to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis containing an original signature. Plaintiff and 

Plaintiff’s counsel are warned that this action may be summarily dismissed if the filing fee is not 

paid by October 5, 2023, as ordered by the District Judge in this action. 

Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for continuance of deadline to file original signature in 

application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 12) is DENIED; and

2. On or before October 5, 2023, Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee for this action, or 

this action is subject to dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee in this action, 

failure to comply with the Court’s order, and failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00976-JLT-GSA Document 13 Filed 09/18/23 Page 3 of 3