Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00068/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00068-4/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 SECOND 

MOTION TO CORRECT ERROR IN FILING 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AND DISREGARDING

PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS

UNSIGNED AND UNNECESSARY

(ECF No. 14)

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 16 Filed 02/13/20 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

(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.)

On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to correct error in filing the application to 

proceed in forma pauperis and a third application to proceed in forms pauperis. (ECF Nos. 12, 

13.) On February 11, 2020, the Court denied as moot Plaintiff’s motion to correct error in filing 

the application to proceed in forma pauperis and denied Plaintiff’s third application to proceed in 

forma pauperis as unnecessary. (ECF No. 15.)

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

application to proceed in forma pauperis and Plaintiff’s fourth application to proceed in forma 

pauperis, filed on February 10, 2020 and docketed by the Court on February 11, 2020. (ECF No. 

14.) In his motion, Plaintiff states that he is submitting a new application to proceed in forma 

pauperis because, when he filed his application to proceed in forma pauperis on February 3, 

2020, 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. 14.) 

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

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

application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. 

Further, a review of Plaintiff’s fourth application to proceed in forma pauperis reveals that 

Plaintiff did not sign the application. All filings submitted to the Court must bear the signature of 

the filing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); Local Rule 131. Additionally, since Plaintiff’s first 

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

Plaintiff’s fourth application is unnecessary. Therefore, Plaintiff’s fourth application to proceed 

in forma pauperis is disregarded as unsigned and unnecessary.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

forma pauperis, (ECF No. 14), is DENIED as moot; and

///

Case 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 02/13/20 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

2. Plaintiff’s fourth application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 14), is 

DISREGARDED as unsigned and unnecessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00068-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 3