Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06654/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06654-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO EL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06654-JCS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE 

DENIED

Re: Dkt. No. 2

Plaintiffs1 Antonio El (self-styled as a “Consulate General), Marie Mairiam Bijou Bayo El 

(self-styled as an “Ambassador”), Ali Bey, and Amirah White El filed this action against dozens 

of defendants, including the U.S. Department of State, the State of California, the Los Angeles 

County Superior Court, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the Los Angeles County 

Probation Department, and several individuals, some of whom are public officials.

Plaintiffs filed a single “short form” application to proceed in forma pauperis signed by 

Antonio El. See dkt. 2. The application indicates that Antonio El is employed “Federal Employer

- 06143” but receives “$0.00” in both gross and take-home pay based on a pay period of “N/A,”

that he has not received income from any other sources over the past twelve months, and that he 

has zero dollars in cash or in a bank account. Antonio El’s response to all other questions on the 

form is “N/A.” This form is somewhat self-contradictory in that it indicates Antonio El is 

employed but receives no pay, and also appears to be inconsistent with even the minimal costs for 

printing and postage that Plaintiffs presumably spent to file this action. The form is not sufficient 

 

1 A document captioned “Emergency Diplomatic Relations” states that Antonio El is “expressly 

not a ‘Plaintiff.’” Antonio El filed this action seeking relief from the Court. He is therefore a 

plaintiff, whether he wishes to be called one or not. The Court also notes that Antonio El lists 

himself as one of the “Plaintiff(s)” on the cover page (captioned “General Document”) of 

Plaintiffs’ filing.

Case 3:19-cv-06654-MMC Document 6 Filed 10/21/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

on its own to show that Antonio El is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, much less that the 

other Plaintiffs are. As far as this Court is aware, every district court in the Ninth Circuit to 

consider the issue has held that all plaintiffs in a case must show that they are indigent before the

filing fee will be waived. E.g., Martinez v. Lutz, No. 1:18-cv-00999-DAD-SKO, 2018 WL 

3924266, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2018); Goode v. California, No. 17cv736-WQH-KSC, 2017 

WL 11421540, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2017); Wolde-Giorgis v. Dillard, No. CV 06-0289-PHXMHM, 2006 WL 8440400, at *6 (D. Ariz. Sept. 29, 2006).

Plaintiffs are therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why their application to proceed in 

forma pauperis should not be denied, by filing a response no later than November 12, 2019. 

Plaintiffs should file one copy of the attached form for each plaintiff, for a total of four forms. 

Plaintiffs must answer each question on the form as instructed. If Plaintiffs in fact have no assets

or income whatsoever, they should also file a brief statement explaining how they meet basic 

needs.

If Plaintiffs do not file a response by November 12, 2019, the Court will deny their 

application. If the application is denied, the Court will provide Plaintiffs an opportunity to pay the 

filing fee, and if they fail to do so, the undersigned magistrate judge will recommend that the case 

be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2019

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-06654-MMC Document 6 Filed 10/21/19 Page 2 of 2