Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00093/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00093-2/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

JORGE N. ARRELLANO-LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. GONZALES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00093-EPG (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING AMENDED ORDER 

FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

BECAUSE HIS ALLEGATION OF POVERTY 

IS UNTRUE AND HE KNOWINGLY 

PROVIDED INACCURATE INFORMATION

ORDER TREATING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS 

WITHDRAWN

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY 

FILING FEE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 

(ECF Nos. 2 & 8)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document titled motion to amend the 

complaint. (ECF No. 8). However, it does not appear that Plaintiff is attempting to amend his 

complaint. No amended complaint is attached, and Plaintiff does not explain any changes he is 

attempting to make. Instead, the filing appears to be Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s order to 

show cause. For the reasons that follow, the Court will discharge the order to show cause, treat 

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application as withdrawn, and direct Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in 

full within thirty days.

On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, along with a Trust Account Statement. (ECF No. 2). According to 

Plaintiff’s application, he is not employed, he has not received money from any sources in the last 

Case 1:23-cv-00093-JLT-EPG Document 9 Filed 02/23/23 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

twelve months, and he has no money or other assets. However, according to the attached Trust 

Account Statement, between July 23, 2022, and January 23, 2023, Plaintiff received over $4,500. 

Additionally, Plaintiff received $500 less than three weeks before filing the case. Finally, it 

appeared that Plaintiff previously attempted to file this case in September of 2022 by mailing the 

complaint to the Court. (ECF No. 1-1, p. 2). At that time, Plaintiff attempted to pay the filing fee 

by sending two money orders. (ECF No. 1, p. 10; ECF No. 1-1, pgs. 2-3). However, the money 

orders were returned because they totaled more than the amount of the filing fee, and Plaintiff’s 

complaint was returned because Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s E-Filing procedures. 

(ECF No. 1-1, pgs. 2-3).

As it appeared that Plaintiff’s allegation of poverty is untrue, and that Plaintiff knowingly 

provided inaccurate information in his in forma pauperis application, the Court ordered Plaintiff 

to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 6).

On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed what appears to be his response to the order to show 

cause. (ECF No. 8). While Plaintiff titled the filing as a motion for leave to amend the 

complaint, Plaintiff states that the inaccurate statements in his in forma pauperis application 

occurred because Plaintiff was misled by a legal assistant. The legal assistant misunderstood 

when Plaintiff explained that he did not have enough money on that day to pay the filing fee. 

Plaintiff had asked if he could “take some kind of prorogue for some days” because he thought 

his complaint was late. (ECF No. 8, p. 3). The assistant then filled out the in forma pauperis

application without letting Plaintiff know about the inconsistency. In fact, Plaintiff intends to pay 

the filing fee. Plaintiff also asks for the opportunity to clarify and correct his in forma pauperis

application. Attached to Plaintiff’s filing is a Trust Account Withdrawal Order dated February 

13, 2013, for $402. (Id. at 7).

While Plaintiff alleges he was misled by a legal assistant, Plaintiff signed the in forma 

pauperis application. And, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, “[b]y presenting to 

the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or 

later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's 

knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances 

Case 1:23-cv-00093-JLT-EPG Document 9 Filed 02/23/23 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

... the factual contentions have evidentiary support....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3). Thus, even if 

Plaintiff is getting assistance, he is still required to conduct a reasonable inquiry before presenting 

facts to the Court, and failure to do so may lead to sanctions.

Nevertheless, given the assertions in Plaintiff’s motion, including that he intends to pay 

the filing fee, the Court will discharge the order to show cause. Additionally, as Plaintiff has 

stated that he intends to pay the filing fee, the Court will not require Plaintiff to file a corrected in 

forma pauperis application. Instead, the Court will treat the application as withdrawn and direct 

Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within thirty days.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The order to show cause issued on January 26, 2023 (ECF No. 6) is 

DISCHARGED;

2. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 2) is treated as withdrawn; and

3. Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of service of this order to pay the $402 filing 

fee in full.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00093-JLT-EPG Document 9 Filed 02/23/23 Page 3 of 3