Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00423/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00423-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK DUFFY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

LOS BANOS UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

1:15-cv-00423---GSA

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

COMPLETE HIS APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

On March 17, 2015, Plaintiff Mark Duffy (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). 

On that same date, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in lieu of 

paying the filing fee to commence a removal action in this Court. (ECF No. 3). 

A civil action may proceed despite a failure to prepay the entire filing fee only if the party 

initiating the action is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See 

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). In applying to proceed IFP, a plaintiff 

must submit an affidavit that “state[s] the facts as to [the] affiant’s poverty with some 

particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 

1960) (“The right to proceed in forma paupers is not an unqualified one. It is a privilege, rather 

than a right”); United States v. Shadley, No. 2:09-MC-80 WBS GGH, 2010 WL 2509910, at *1 

Case 1:15-cv-00423-EPG Document 5 Filed 04/08/15 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

(E.D. Cal. June 17, 2010) (denying request to proceed IFP where applicant “failed to adequately 

document her financial status”). 

Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is incomplete. Although Plaintiff replied in the 

affirmative when asked whether he owned any “real estate, stocks, bonds, securities, other 

financial instruments, automobiles or any other thing of value,” he declined to respond to the 

request on the application that he “describe the property and state its value.” (ECF No. 3). 

Accordingly, no later than April 24, 2015, Plaintiff must fully complete the application with the 

required information. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with the Court’s order may result 

in the denial of his application. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00423-EPG Document 5 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 2