Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01001/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01001-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ARTEAGA,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. NEVE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:19-cv-01001-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docs. 11, 15)

21-DAY DEADLINE

Clerk of the Court to assign a District Judge

On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff Jose Arteaga filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (IFP). (Doc. 11.) The Inmate Statement Report included with Plaintiff’s motion 

indicates that, as of September 19, 2019, Plaintiff had $1,186.72 in his inmate trust account. (Id.

at 9.) During the preceding six months, Plaintiff had an average monthly balance of 

approximately $1,486. (See id.) Thus, it appears that Plaintiff has adequate funds to pay the filing 

fee of $400 in full to proceed in this action.

Accordingly, on November 25, 2019, the Court issued an order to show cause why 

Plaintiff’s IFP motion should not be denied. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff responded on December 20, 

2019.1(Doc. 15.) In his response, Plaintiff does not contest that he has adequate funds to pay the 

 

1 Plaintiff captions his response as a motion. (See Doc. 15 at 1.) To the extent that Plaintiff’s filing is a motion for an 

extension of time, (see id. at 4), the Court denies the motion for the reasons set forth herein.

Case 1:19-cv-01001-DAD-SKO Document 17 Filed 01/03/20 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

filing fee in this action, and he discusses the efforts he has made to attempt to pay the fee from his 

inmate trust account. (See id. at 2-4.) Plaintiff states that he was under the assumption that all 

prisoners must file IFP applications as a matter of course, and that he did not intend to mislead the 

Court about his ability to pay the filing fee. (See id.)

As the Court previously explained, (see Doc. 13 at 1), proceeding “in forma pauperis is a 

privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). While a party need not 

be completely destitute to proceed IFP, Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 

339-40 (1948), “‘the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are 

not squandered to underwrite, at public expense, ... the remonstrances of a suitor who is 

financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.’” Doe v. Educ. Enrichment Sys., 

No. 15cv2628-MMA (MDD), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173063, *2 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting

Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984)).

Since Plaintiff is able to pay the filing fee in full in this action, the Court HEREBY 

RECOMMENDS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 11) be DENIED; and,

2. Plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee of $400.00 within 30 days of the assigned

District Judge adopting these findings and recommendations.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a District Judge to this action.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21 days of the 

date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with 

the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 

waiver of his rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 

Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

Case 1:19-cv-01001-DAD-SKO Document 17 Filed 01/03/20 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

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01001-DAD-SKO Document 17 Filed 01/03/20 Page 3 of 3