Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01144/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01144-3/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

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

Plaintiff Lyralisa Lavena Stevens is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302.

On August 16, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 

recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied because Plaintiff has 

sufficient funds to pay the filing fee in full. Doc. No. 12. The magistrate judge provided Plaintiff 

fourteen days to file objections to the findings and recommendations. Id. at 2. Plaintiff filed 

timely objections on August 26, 2021. Doc. No. 13.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including Plaintiff’s objections, 

the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 

analysis. According to her certified inmate trust account statement, Plaintiff had $1418.42 in her 

trust account on July 22, 2021 (i.e., the date she filed her motion to proceed in forma pauperis). 

Doc. No. 4 at 2. This is more than enough to pay the $402 filing fee in full. Therefore, in forma 

pauperis status is not warranted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

In her objections, Plaintiff contends that the magistrate judge “ignored” the fact that a hold 

LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS,

Plaintiff, 

v.

C. MARTINEZ, 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:21-cv-01144-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS

(Doc. Nos. 2 & 12)

Case 1:21-cv-01144-JLT-SKO Document 14 Filed 08/30/21 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

was placed on a $1400 economic impact payment that Plaintiff received, and that the judge 

asserted that these “funds were instantly available.” Doc. No. 13 at 1–2. Plaintiff is mistaken. 

Although Plaintiff is correct that a hold was initially placed on the economic impact payment, 

according to her inmate trust account statement, the hold was lifted on “07/09/2021,” or July 9, 

2021. Doc. No. 4 at 2; Doc. No. 10 at 3. More to the point, Plaintiff had $1418.42 available in 

her account as of July 22, 2021. Doc. No. 4 at 2.

Plaintiff also objects to the magistrate judge’s statement that the filing fee for this action is 

$402, when plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis are only required to pay $350. Doc. No. 13 at 

2. Although Plaintiff is correct that plaintiffs with in forma pauperis status are only required to 

pay $350 for civil cases, plaintiffs without in forma pauperis status are required to pay $350 plus 

$52 in administrative fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1914; District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, Item 14. 

Thus, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full $402.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 12) issued on August 16, 2021, are 

ADOPTED in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED;

3. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall pay the $402 

filing fee in full; and

4. Failure to pay the filing fee within the time provided will result in dismissal of this 

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2021 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01144-JLT-SKO Document 14 Filed 08/30/21 Page 2 of 2