Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00975/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00975-3/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

JONATHAN ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00975-ADA-SAB

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 

REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY FILING 

FEE

(ECF No. 14)

DEADLINE: OCTOBER 5, 2023

Plaintiff Jonathan Robertson, filed the complaint in this action on June 23, 2023. (ECF 

No. 1.) At filing, Plaintiff was a state prisoner proceeding with counsel. Plaintiff did not pay the 

filing fee in this action and instead filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 3.) On July 5, 2023, the Court received Plaintiff’s prisoner trust 

account statement from the Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF). (ECF No. 6.) The 

statement provided that as of July 3, 2023, Plaintiff had $12,619.13 in the trust account, and 

finding the available balance in Plaintiff’s account reflected that Plaintiff could pay the $402.00 

filing fee for this action, on July 6, 2023, the Court issued findings and recommendations that the 

application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (ECF No. 8.) The Court’s recommendation 

specifically stated: 

Should Plaintiff have additional information to provide the Court, 

or should Plaintiff’s available balance change by the time he 

receives this order, he may notify the Court. However, Plaintiff is 

Case 1:23-cv-00975-JLT-GSA Document 15 Filed 09/15/23 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

advised that the Court has the authority to consider any reasons 

and circumstances for any change in Plaintiff’s available assets and 

funds. See Collier v. Tatum, 722 F.2d 653, 656 (11th Cir. 1983) 

(district court may consider an unexplained decrease in an inmate’s 

trust account, or whether an inmate’s account has been depleted 

intentionally to avoid court costs).

(ECF No 8 at 2-3.) 

Plaintiff, still represented by counsel, did not file objections to the findings and 

recommendations within the time period to do so. (ECF No. 13.) On September 5, 2023, the 

District Judge adopted the findings and recommendations and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing 

fee within thirty (30) days of service of the order. (ECF No. 13.) The District Judge’s order 

adopting did not discuss an option to file a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

(ECF No. 13.) The filing fee is thus due October 5, 2023. 

On September 14, 2023, Plaintiff, still represented by counsel, filed a motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 14.) Now, Plaintiff’s application indicates they are no longer 

incarcerated, however, also writes the initials “CCWF,” perhaps noting the previous place of 

incarceration. Plaintiff claims no form of income, zero money in cash or checking/savings 

accounts, and no property or assets. Further, the Court notes the application was signed by 

Plaintiff on September 1, 2023, before the date the District Judge adopted the findings and 

recommendations. Finally, the form used still has the signature affirming authorization to obtain 

a prisoner trust statement. 

In the Court’s view, Plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee in this action by October 5, 

2023, and has not. (ECF No. 13.) The District Judge’s order expressly stated: “Plaintiff is 

ordered to submit the appropriate filing fee in full no later than thirty (30) days from the date of 

service of this order; and [] Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order will result in 

dismissal of this action.” (ECF No. 13 at 2.) Given the fact Plaintiff is represented by counsel, 

the previous recommendation based on the trust statement, the District Judge’s order adopting

issued before the filed application (but before the application was signed) that required Plaintiff

to pay the filing fee, and the insufficient information in the current application in relation to the 

previous application, the Court shall deny the instant application. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:23-cv-00975-JLT-GSA Document 15 Filed 09/15/23 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

counsel are warned that this action may be summarily dismissed if the filing fee is not paid by 

October 5, 2023, as ordered by the District Judge in this action. 

Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 14) is DENIED;

and

2. On or before October 5, 2023, Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee for this action, or 

this action is subject to dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee in this action, 

failure to comply with the Court’s order, and failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00975-JLT-GSA Document 15 Filed 09/15/23 Page 3 of 3