Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00585/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00585-3/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

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

CORNEL JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARY ANN WOLLET, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-0585 JLT EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING 

PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE IN 

FULL WITHIN 30 DAYS

(Docs. 6, 9)

Cornel Jackson asserts that he suffered violations of his civil rights while a pretrial 

detainee at the Madera County Jail. (See Doc. 1.) He requests to proceed in forma pauperis in 

this action. (Doc. 6.) The magistrate judge found “Plaintiff’s allegation is untrue.” (Doc. 9 at 

3.) The magistrate judge observed that “Plaintiff received a settlement ten times the filing fee 

on March 21, 2024, less than two months prior to filing this instant action.” (Id., citing Jackson 

v. Khalib, Case No. 1:20-cv-01567 KES SKO, Doc. 59 (May 2, 2024).) The magistrate judge 

also found Plaintiff acted in bad faith, because he diverted the funds prior to filing this action 

and seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, and previously engaged in similar conduct. (Id. at 4-

5, citing Jackson v. Quick, 2021 WL 2292331, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 4, 2021), report and 

recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 3048385 (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2021). The magistrate judge 

noted it was “is within the Court’s discretion to dismiss this case with prejudice” based upon 

Case 1:24-cv-00585-JLT-EPG Document 11 Filed 10/21/24 Page 1 of 3
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

the finding that Plaintiff acted in bad faith by diverting his funds and seeking to proceed in 

forma pauperis. (Id. at 5.) Nevertheless, the magistrate judge indicated “the Court will stop 

short of recommending the harshest sanction in this case,” and instead recommended “Plaintiff 

be required to pay the filing fee in full should he wish to proceed with this case.” (Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 10 at 2.) 

He maintains the $4,000 settlement was “signed over to [his] children.” (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff 

disputes the finding that he acted in bad faith. (Id. at 2-4.) He asserts that he “diligently 

notified this Court of his $4,000.00 settlement, in good faith.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff notes that the 

settlement “is not displayed on [his] account history.” (Id.) According to Plaintiff, “his 

family’s home was burned down, due to arson, leaving ... five of his children homeless.” (Id.

at 3.) He asserts that “his family is his main focus, after listening to them having to be 

separated, because of limited places for them to go.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends the Court should 

consider the hardship of his family and the reasoning behind Plaintiff’s decision to sign over 

the settlement funds to his children. (Id.) 

Plaintiff does not dispute that he previously engaged in similar conduct—namely, 

diverting funds—before this Court. As the magistrate judge observed, in Johnson v. Quick, he 

requested the Court provide copies asserting an inability to pay, but prior to the request Plaintiff 

had $1,700 in his account that he transferred to a third party. (Doc. 9 at 4, (citing Quick, 2021 

WL 2292331, at *3).) This history of diverting funds supports the finding of the magistrate 

judge. Though Plaintiff’s reported desire to help his children is noble, his undisputed history of 

diverting funds also undermines his assertion he acted in good faith in doing so. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes 

the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Given 

Plaintiff’s receipt of the $4,000 settlement only less than two months prior to filing this action, 

Plaintiff fails to show he did not have access to sufficient funds to pay the filing fee in the 

relevant period. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (indicating the Court should consider the income of 

a prisoner “for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint”). Thus, 

Case 1:24-cv-00585-JLT-EPG Document 11 Filed 10/21/24 Page 2 of 3
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

the Court ORDERS: 

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 20, 2024 (Doc. 9) are 

ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 6) is DENIED. 

3. Plaintiff SHALL pay in full the $405.00 filing fee within 30 days of the date of 

service of this order.

Plaintiff is advised that failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result in the 

dismissal of this action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00585-JLT-EPG Document 11 Filed 10/21/24 Page 3 of 3