Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01156/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01156-0/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

JAMIE OSUNA,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. CAMPBELL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01156-EPG (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR FILING A FALSE IFP 

AFFIDAVIT

(ECF No. 2)

RESPONSE DUE BY NO LATER THAN 

NOVEMBER 18, 2024

Plaintiff Jamie Osuna is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action. (ECF No. 

1). Plaintiff’s complaint is dated September 24, 2024 (id. at 33) and was filed on September 30, 

2024. (See docket). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), 

also dated September 24, 2024. (ECF No. 2). For the reasons given below, the Court will require 

Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for filing a false IFP affidavit.

The Court normally requires a $405 filing fee for a civil action. However, a federal 

statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, permits a plaintiff to commence a lawsuit without prepaying a filing 

fee. This statute requires “an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner 

possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” § 1915(a)(1). In 

addition to filing an affidavit, a prisoner “shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account 

statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately 

preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of 

each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.” § 1915(a)(2). 

Case 1:24-cv-01156-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 10/16/24 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

Importantly, under § 1915(e)(2)(A), a “court shall dismiss” a case if it determines that 

“the allegation of poverty is untrue.” But “[t]o dismiss [a] complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), a 

showing of bad faith is required, not merely inaccuracy.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 

1235 n. 8 (9th Cir. 2015). In reviewing an IFP application, a court is “entitled to consider [a 

plaintiff’s] own economic choices about how to spend his money.” Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 

109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995). For example, the Court can consider that a plaintiff thought it more 

worthwhile to spend his money on commissary items than to pay the filing fee for his civil rights 

suit. Id. Other courts have found bad faith where “prisoner-plaintiffs have diverted funds in the 

period leading up to their IFP application.” Witkin v. Lee, No. 2:17-cv-0232-JAM-EFB P, 2020 

WL 2512383, at *4 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2020) (collecting cases).

With these standards in mind, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed the standard IFP 

application, which includes a declaration signed by Plaintiff answering questions about his 

finances under penalty of perjury. (ECF No. 2 at 2). Importantly, Plaintiff stated that (1) he 

received no money from any source over the last twelve months and (2) he had no cash or any 

other assets. (Id.)

However, according to Plaintiff’s trust account statement (ECF No. 5), the information in 

his IFP application is false. Among other things, the statement shows that:

(1) Plaintiff received numerous deposits in his account in the six-month period 

preceding the filing of the complaint, totaling over $874; and

(2) Plaintiff had account balance of $253.17 on September 16, 2024, shortly before he 

signed his IFP application. Plaintiff received another JPAY deposit the day after he 

signed his application, bringing his trust account balance to $313.17 as of 

September 30, 2024, when his IFP application was filed with this Court.

From these facts, it appears that Plaintiff intentionally made false statements on his IFP 

affidavit by claiming that he received no money in the last twelve months and had no funds, and 

that he may have intentionally diverted funds by making commissary purchases shortly before 

filing his complaint. 

\\\

\\\

Case 1:24-cv-01156-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 10/16/24 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

Based on these circumstances, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. By no later than November 18, 2024, Plaintiff shall file a response to this order, showing 

cause why this case should not be dismissed for filing a false IFP affidavit.

2. If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this order, he is advised that this case may be 

dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01156-JLT-EPG Document 8 Filed 10/16/24 Page 3 of 3