Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00601/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00601-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROLYN ALONSO and 1:07-cv-00601 AWI NEW (TAG)

SAMUEL HOCKLESS, SR.,

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING CAROLYN ALONSO’S

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

vs. PAUPERIS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 2)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS &

RECREATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiffs Carolyn Alonso and Samuel Hockless, Sr., proceeding pro se, filed a complaint

alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 

(Doc. 1). The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)

and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-303.

On April 19, 2007, Alonso filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 2). 

Hockless, however, has not filed a similar request. (See generally Dkt. Sheet). 

DISCUSSION

Title 28, Section 1915(a)(1) of the United States Code provides, in pertinent part:

[A]ny court . . . may authorize the commencement, prosecution, or defense of any

suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment

of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a

statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay

such fees or give security therefor.

Case 1:07-cv-00601-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 05/02/07 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

2

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 

A civil litigant does not qualify for IFP status if, inter alia, the allegation of poverty is

untrue. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). To satisfy the allegation of poverty, a litigant must show that he

or she “cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be able to

provide himself and dependents ‘with the necessities of life.’” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de

Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (quotations and citations omitted); see also Martinez

v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 362 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004) (affidavit is sufficient if it

represents that the litigant is “unable to pay for the court fees and costs, and to provide

necessities for himself and his dependents”) (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339, 69 S.Ct. at 89);

Alfaro v. Sacramento Police Dep’t., 2007 WL 114266 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (findings and

recommendations, adopted by the district court on February 20, 2007 (case no. 2:06-cv-2855)

stating that “[a]n in forma pauperis applicant must demonstrate that . . . he cannot meet court

costs and still provide himself and his dependents with the necessities of life.” (emphasis in

original)). 

The filing fee for the instant district court action is $350. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Although 

Alonso declares that she has no income or assets with which to support herself and her daughter,

the Court lacks sufficient knowledge regarding Hockless’s financial situation to ascertain

whether he can pay the filing fee. Accordingly, Alonso’s request to proceed IFP is denied

without prejudice. Upon receipt of a completed application to proceed IFP from Hockless, this

Court will re-evaluate whether the Plaintiffs may proceed in forma pauperis. Alternatively,

Plaintiffs may elect to pay the $350 filing fee. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Alonso’s request to proceed IFP (Doc. 2) is DENIED without prejudice; 

2. Hockless is ORDERED to submit an application to proceed IFP or, alternatively, to

pay the $350 filing fee, within twenty (20) days; and

///

Case 1:07-cv-00601-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 05/02/07 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

3

3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward an application to proceed IFP (non-prisoner) to

Hockless.

PLAINTIFFS ARE ADVISED THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER

MAY RESULT IN A RECOMMENDATION THAT THEIR CASE BE DISMISSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00601-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 05/02/07 Page 3 of 3