Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01231/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01231-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN SALVADORE GAMBOA, )

et al. )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF FRESNO, et al., )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

Case No. F CV 06-1231

AWI/LJO

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ EX

PARTE REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

APPLICATION

Plaintiffs Stephen Salvadore Gamboa (“Gamboa”), Maria “Teresa” Hele (“Hele”), Ruben

Carlos Jimenez (“Jimenez”), Shawn M. Putnam (“Putnam”), and Michael Becker (“Becker”)

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), move for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s denial of their

motion to proceed in forma pauperis and order to pay filing fees. This Court grants Plaintiffs’

motion for reconsideration and grants the motions to proceed in forma pauperis of Gamboa,

Hele, Jimenez, and Putnam, and reverses the order to pay fees. Becker’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis is denied.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on September 7, 2006, which

was denied by the magistrate judge on September 12, 2006. The magistrate judge concluded that

the Plaintiffs had the “collective” ability to pay the filing fees because they were not

“collectively” poverty stricken. The magistrate judge looked to the monthly-take home pay of

Case 1:06-cv-01231-AWI -SMS Document 26 Filed 07/13/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Becker and his assets in making its determination to deny all of Plaintiffs’ motions. Becker has

take-home income of $3300.00 a month and $80,000.00 in assets. Plaintiffs Gamboa, Jimenez,

and Putnam earn less than $1000.00 a month; Plaintiff Hele is unemployed. None of the

Plaintiffs, other than Becker, have significant assets. The magistrate judge noted that it was

“concerned that plaintiffs attempt to commit fraud on this Court with their dubious attempt to

take advantage of cost-free filing” and that the relief Plaintiffs sought was “reserved for the truly

needy.” The magistrate judge denied Plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in forma pauperis and

ordered Plaintiffs to pay filing fees. Plaintiffs paid the $350.00 filing fee on September 13, 2006.

Plaintiffs filed their ex parte request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s orders

on September 25, 2006.

LEGAL STANDARD

This Court applies the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review to the

magistrate judge’s ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 72-303(f).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs make two arguments in support of their motions for reconsideration. First, that

the magistrate judge exceeded his authority by denying the applications and ordering the payment

of filing fees. Plaintiffs also argue that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or

contrary to law because their applications should be considered individually and not collectively. 

The magistrate judge’s authority is derived from 28 U.S.C. § 636 and from Local Rule

72-302. It is well settled that a magistrate judge lacks authority to enter final judgment on a

motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 548-59 (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.”). Local Rule

72-302 does not authorize a magistrate judge to deny a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. A

magistrate judge may grant a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but exceeds his authority

Case 1:06-cv-01231-AWI -SMS Document 26 Filed 07/13/07 Page 2 of 5
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

when he denies a motion outright. See Woods v. Dahlberg, 894 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 1990)

(“Although section 636(b)(1)(A) does not specifically reference a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, we conclude that a denial of such a motion is the functional equivalent of an

involuntary dismissal and is outside the scope of a magistrate’s authority.”). This Court did not

refer Plaintiffs’ applications to the magistrate judge, and it does not appear on the record that the

parties consented to have the magistrate judge decide the motion and enter judgment. Thus, the

magistrate judge erred by denying Plaintiffs’ in forma pauperis applications and ordering

payment.

As to the second ruling, Plaintiffs argue that in forma pauperis is not a collective

determination and that four of the five plaintiffs are eligible for in forma pauperis status. The

magistrate judge’s order did not cite any legal authority for making a collective determination of

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis applications. Plaintiffs cite Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours &

Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331 (1948) for the proposition that an in forma pauperis applicant’s status

should be independently addressed and that the applicant’s access to the courts should not be

limited by the actions or inactions of other co-plaintiffs. In Adkins the Supreme Court considered

the denial by the district court of petitioner’s motion to file an appeal in forma pauperis based on

the failure of the co-claimants to pay or otherwise file an affidavit of poverty. Ten of twelve of

the claimants had filed applications, but the district court denied all the applications, including

petitioner’s application, because they had not all submitted in forma pauperis applications. The

Supreme Court overruled, reasoning that “a restrictive interpretation of this statute might wholly

deprive one of several litigants of the right of appeal, even though he had a meritorious case and

even though his poverty made it impossible for him to pay or give security for costs. Such a

deprivation would frustrate the basic purpose of the statute.” Adkins, 335 U.S. at 340. The court

concluded that petitioner was entitled to appellate review “without regard to whether other

claimants filed an affidavit of poverty, or paid or secured their fair part of the costs.” Id. Thus,

under Adkins it seems that a plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is to be considered

Case 1:06-cv-01231-AWI -SMS Document 26 Filed 07/13/07 Page 3 of 5
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 4

individually and regardless whether other co-plaintiffs similarly filed. 

This Court’s research has uncovered only one district court case from a different circuit

that supports the magistrate judge’s collective determination of in forma pauperis applications. 

See Nur v. Blake Development Corp., 664 F. Supp. 430 (N.D. Ind. 1987). There, the district

court reviewed a plaintiff’s second application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was

employed for ten hours per week and earned $4.50 an hour. Plaintiff’s application included a

statement of the financial status of a salaried co-plaintiff earning $1500.00 per month. The

Court, without citing any authority or legal precedent, determined that the co-plaintiff’s funds

must be considered its ruling on plaintiff’s application and denied plaintiff’s application. See

Nur, 664 F. Supp at 431. Nur, however, is not binding and this Court declines to follow it in this

situation, especially given Adkins’ broad language regarding fulfillment of the basic purposes of

the in forma pauperis statute.

In the instant case, counsel represents that the only reason an application was submitted

on behalf of Becker was because the court clerk’s required that “in forma pauperis applications

had to be submitted for each and every plaintiff if we were seeking that status on behalf of any

one of the plaintiffs.” The magistrate judge based his collective determination on Becker’s

assets. This Court concludes, however, that Plaintiffs’ applications must be considered

individually and without regard to the assets of other co-Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Gamboa, Jimenez,

and Putnam earn less than $1000.00 a month; Plaintiff Hele is unemployed. None of the

Plaintiffs, other than Becker, have significant assets. Becker has take-home income of $3300.00

a month and $80,000.00 in assets. Gamboa, Hale, Jimenez, and Putnam are eligible to proceed

in forma pauperis; Becker is not eligible. Thus, Gamboa, Hele, Jimenez, and Putnam’s

applications are granted, and Becker’s application is denied. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated in the above Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that the magistrate judge’s order denying Plaintiffs’ in forma pauperis applications is

Case 1:06-cv-01231-AWI -SMS Document 26 Filed 07/13/07 Page 4 of 5
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 5

REVERSED, and the order to pay filing fees is also REVERSED. The in forma pauperis

applications of Gamboa, Hele, Jimenez and Putnam are hereby GRANTED; the application of

Becker is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01231-AWI -SMS Document 26 Filed 07/13/07 Page 5 of 5