Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01329/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01329-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLOYD SCOTT, 

Plaintiff,

v.

J. PALMER, et al., 

 

Defendants.

 /

1:09-cv-01329-AWI-SMS-PC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS BE DENIED

(Doc. 2.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Floyd Scott (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed on July 29, 2009. (Doc. 1.) On July 29, 2009, Plaintiff

filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a copy of his prison trust account statement pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2.) 

Examination of plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis reveals that plaintiff is

able to afford the costs of this action. Specifically, plaintiff's account statement reflects a balance

of $1,714.06 on July 20, 2009, and according to prison records, the average balance in the account

for the most recent 6-month period was $1,655.38. (Doc. 2 at 2, 3, 4.). The filing fee for this action

is $350.00.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied; and

2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $350.00 filing fee in full.

Case 1:09-cv-01329-SKO Document 5 Filed 08/10/09 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

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01329-SKO Document 5 Filed 08/10/09 Page 2 of 2