Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00030/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00030-0/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARCELINO CLEMENTE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D. BEVIN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-0030-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“application”) (ECF No. 2). 

 Plaintiff’s application and prisoner trust fund account statement submitted therewith (ECF 

No. 5) indicate that plaintiff has – as of January 7, 2020 – an available balance of 7,454.15 

dollars. Id. at 1. The court has discretion to decide whether to grant IFP status. See Calif. Men’s 

Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Section 1915 typically requires the 

reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied 

the statute’s requirement of indigency”), rev’d on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). To 

qualify for IFP status an applicant must show that he “cannot because of his poverty pay or give 

security for the costs and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of 

life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Here, plaintiff’s basic 

needs are provided by the State. And his available funds – amounting to over seven-thousand 

dollars – are more than adequate to cover the filing fee for this action. 

Case 2:20-cv-00030-WBS-JDP Document 8 Filed 02/06/20 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 

2 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a United 

States District Judge to this case.1

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s application (ECF No. 2) be denied, that 

plaintiff be ordered to pay the 400 dollar filing fee within thirty days, and be warned that his 

failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 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.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: February 6, 2020. 

 1

 In Williams v. King, the Ninth Circuit held that the consent of all parties, including 

unserved defendants, was a prerequisite to a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction to enter a dispositive 

decision. 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). Plaintiff has consented (ECF No. 5), but obviously 

defendants – who have not yet appeared – have not filed a consent. Denial of an in forma 

pauperis application is a dispositive decision. See Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1988) 

(“Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, a United States Magistrate may not enter a final judgment on a motion 

to proceed in forma pauperis unless the matter has been referred to him or her by the court and the 

parties consent to have the magistrate decide the motion and enter judgment.”). 

Case 2:20-cv-00030-WBS-JDP Document 8 Filed 02/06/20 Page 2 of 2