Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00944/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00944-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARDELL KAI WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-06-0944 LKK GGH PS

vs.

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested leave to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule

72-302(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit in support of

the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

Pursuant to federal statute, a filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil

action in federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The court may authorize the

commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a

person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). An in forma pauperis applicant must demonstrate that because of his

poverty, plaintiff cannot meet court costs and still provide himself and his dependents with the

necessities of life. 

Case 2:06-cv-00944-LKK -GGH Document 6 Filed 08/07/06 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

2

Because plaintiff’s original application to proceed in forma pauperis did not

clearly state his income, plaintiff was directed to file another application. His affidavit, filed July

3, 2006, demonstrates that he had an annual salary for calendar year 2005 of $40,320. Plaintiff

has failed to demonstrate he has insufficient assets to pay the filing fee and costs and provide the

necessities of life for himself and his dependents. See Alexander v. Carson Adult High Sch., 9

F.3d 1448 (9th Cir. 1993); California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir.

1991) rev’d on other grounds, Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 113 S. Ct.

716 (1993); United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 1940 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam);

Stehouwer v. Hennessey, 841 F. Supp. 316, (N.D. Cal. 1994), aff’d in part, vacated in part, sub.

nom. Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109 (9th Cir. 1995). The court finds plaintiff has made an

inadequate showing of indigence.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED, and plaintiff be given thirty days in which to pay the

filing fee of $350.00. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten

(10) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 8/7/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH/076

Williams0944.ifpden.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-00944-LKK -GGH Document 6 Filed 08/07/06 Page 2 of 2