Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01733/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01733-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH VINCENT KAUTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

TULARE COUNTY SHERIFF 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-01733 GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR THE FUNDING OF PHONE CARDS

(ECF No. 6)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR COURT RESPONSE AS MOOT

(ECF No. 8)

Plaintiff, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 

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

Before this Court are Plaintiff’s motion for funding and a request for a court response. 

ECF Nos. 6, 8. For the reasons stated below, the motions will be denied.

I. REQUEST FOR FUNDING OF PHONE CARDS

Plaintiff has filed a motion which requests that be granted $40.00 a week for the purchase 

of phone cards. ECF No. 6. In support of the request, Plaintiff states that he is indigent and 

needs to hire investigators, make contact with defense witnesses, etc. Id. at 1.

Plaintiff is informed that a grant of in forma pauperis status to a litigant does not entitle a 

Plaintiff to such funds. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(1); Porter v. Dep’t of Treasury, 564 F.3d 

Case 1:23-cv-01733-GSA Document 9 Filed 08/06/24 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

176 n.3 (3rd Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(1)). For this reason, Plaintiff’s request will be 

denied.

II. DEMAND FOR COURT RESPONSE

Plaintiff has also filed a document which is titled “Demand for Court Response”. ECF 

No. 8. Plaintiff motion requests that the Court review his case so that it may proceed to the next 

step. Plaintiff is informed that the Court has now completed the screening of your complaint and

in it has given you instructions on how to next proceed. For this reason, Plaintiff’s demand for 

Court response is deemed resolved.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for funding of phone cards (ECF No. 6) is DENIED, and

2. Plaintiff’s request for court response (ECF No. 8) is deemed RESOLVED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01733-GSA Document 9 Filed 08/06/24 Page 2 of 2