Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00898/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00898-3/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

ERICK EDDIE RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:21-cv-00898-SKO (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

SHOULD NOT BE DENIED

21-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Erick Eddie Rodriguez initiated this action on September 10, 2019. (Doc. 1.) On 

that same date, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 2.) On June 4, 

2021, Magistrate Judge Allison Claire issued an order transferring this case to the Fresno Division 

of the Eastern District of California. (Doc. 15.) The Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s motion 

to proceed IFP.

According to the certified account statement submitted by the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation, Plaintiff had $842.91 on the date he filed his application to 

proceed IFP. (Doc. 6) This is more than enough to pay the $402 filing fee in this action. 

Therefore, Plaintiff must show why he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.

Proceeding “in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 

116 (9th Cir. 1965). While a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis,

Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948), “‘the same even-handed 

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 17 Filed 06/08/21 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

care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public 

expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole 

or in material part, to pull his own oar,’” Doe v. Educ. Enrichment Sys., No. 15-cv-2628-MMAMDD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173063, *2 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (citation omitted). Hence, “the court 

shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the [plaintiff’s] allegation of poverty 

is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A).

Plaintiff appears to have had adequate funds to pay the filing fee for this action when he 

filed his application to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff,

within 21 days of the date of service of this order, to show cause in writing why his motion to 

proceed IFP should not be denied. Failure to respond to this order may result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00898-KES-SKO Document 17 Filed 06/08/21 Page 2 of 2