Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00737/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00737-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM McKENZIE,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-0737 MCE CKD

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Resolution of defendant’s in forma pauperis application was referred to the undersigned 

by minute order filed April 14, 2016. ECF No. 5. Defendant filed an amended application. ECF 

No. 11. In the amended affidavit, defendant states that her biweekly take home pay is $1,400. 

Defendant also states that she owns her own home with a monthly mortgage payment of $2,000.

By order filed May 5, 2016, defendant was directed to submit the appropriate fees to the 

Clerk of Court within fourteen days. Defendant was also cautioned that failure to pay the filing 

and general administrative fees in the amount of $400 would result in a recommendation that the 

application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and the instant action be remanded. The 

fourteen day time period has now passed and defendant has failed to submit the requisite fees for 

removing an action from state court to this court and has not otherwise responded to the court’s 

order.

Case 2:16-cv-00737-MCE-CKD Document 14 Filed 06/03/16 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 HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 11) be denied; and

2. This action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of San 

Joaquin.

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. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: June 3, 2016

4 pacbell-mckenzie0737.ftc

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00737-MCE-CKD Document 14 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 2