Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01368/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01368-4/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

RICHARD A. MATLOCK,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERN COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01368-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND REQUIRING 

PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE TO 

PROCEED WITH THIS ACTION

(ECF Nos. 10, 11)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Richard A. Matlock is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On December 4, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 

recommendations that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied on the 

ground that Plaintiff has sufficient assets to pay the filing fee in full, and that Plaintiff be required 

to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action. (ECF No. 11.) The 

findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 

thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. (Id.) Plaintiff timely filed objections 

on December 26, 2019. (ECF No. 12.)

In his objections, Plaintiff contends that this Court should decline to adopt the Magistrate 

Case 1:19-cv-01368-JLT-CDB Document 13 Filed 01/06/20 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

Judge’s findings and recommendations and grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis

because he has no guarantees of receiving any money from his mother and/or grandmother, the 

prison awards inmates who show financial responsibility with a lower security classification, and 

he uses the funds in his prison trust account to purchase approximately 75% of his sustenance 

from the commissary because the food provided by the Federal Bureau of Prisons is “not fit for 

human beings.” (ECF No. 12, at 2.) 

However, the Court is “entitled to consider [Plaintiff’s] own economic choices about how 

to spend his money, as between his filing fee and comforts purchased in the prison 

commissary[.]” Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995). “If the inmate thinks a 

more worthwhile use of his funds would be to buy [food from the commissary] ... than to file a 

civil rights suit, [the inmate] has demonstrated an implied evaluation of the suit that the district 

court is entitled to honor.” Id. (citation omitted). In this case, Plaintiff has clearly prioritized 

commissary purchases over his obligation to pay the filing fee in this action. More than a 

thousand dollars was deposited into Plaintiff’s account between April 30, 2019 and September 30, 

2019, the date when this action was filed. Therefore, while Plaintiff had more than enough 

money to retain some funds in order to pay the filing fee for this action, Plaintiff chose instead to 

spend his money in other ways, such as on purchases from the commissary. Consequently, the 

Court finds that Plaintiff did not qualify as impoverished when he filed this action. 

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

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

objections, the Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and 

by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 4, 2019, (ECF No. 11), 

are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 10), is DENIED;

3. Within twenty-one (21) days following the date of service of this order, Plaintiff 

shall pay the $400.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action;

Case 1:19-cv-01368-JLT-CDB Document 13 Filed 01/06/20 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

4. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to pay the filing fee within the specified time, 

this action will be dismissed; and

5. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01368-JLT-CDB Document 13 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 3