Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00068/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00068-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEWIS ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

XAVIER BECERRA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO CORRECT ERROR IN FILING 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND DISREGARDING 

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS 

UNNECESSARY

(ECF Nos. 12, 13)

Plaintiff Lewis Anderson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint and an application 

to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) On January 17, 2020, the undersigned issued 

findings and recommendations, recommending that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and that Plaintiff be ordered to pay the 

$400.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action. (ECF No. 4.) 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. at 4.) On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed 

written objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 8.) As of this date, Plaintiff’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2), and the undersigned’s January 17, 2020 

findings and recommendations remain pending before the assigned District Judge.

On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Case 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB Document 15 Filed 02/11/20 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

(ECF No. 9.) On February 6, 2019, the Court disregarded Plaintiff’s second application to 

proceed in forma pauperis as unnecessary because Plaintiff’s first application to proceed in forma 

pauperis was still pending before the assigned District Judge. (ECF No. 10.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to correct error in filing the application to 

proceed in forma pauperis and Plaintiff’s third application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 

Nos. 12, 13.) In his motion, Plaintiff states that he is submitting a new application to proceed in 

forma pauperis because he forgot to provide the Court with his prison trust account statement 

showing the activity in his trust account for the six months prior to filing the complaint. (ECF 

No. 12.) 

However, since the Court has already disregarded Plaintiff’s February 3, 2020 second 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff’s motion to correct error in filing the 

application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. Further, as Plaintiff’s first 

application to proceed in forma pauperis is still pending before the assigned District Judge, 

Plaintiff’s third application is unnecessary. Therefore, Plaintiff’s third application to proceed in 

forma pauperis is denied as unnecessary.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to correct error in filing the application to proceed in forma 

pauperis, (ECF No. 12), is DENIED as moot; and

2. Plaintiff’s third application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 13), is 

DENIED as unnecessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB Document 15 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 2