Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03416/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03416-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amphone Louprasong
Plaintiff
San Joaquin County Jail Recreational
Defendant

Document Text:

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

AMPHONE LOUPRASONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL 

RECREATIONAL, 

Defendant.

Case No. 2:24-cv-3416-JDP (P)

ORDER

Plaintiff, a county inmate, brings this § 1983 action and concurrently has applied to 

proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. I have reviewed his trust fund account statement, and it 

appears that he has sufficient funds to cover the filing fee. His account statement indicates that he 

has an available balance of $1,496—more than enough to cover the $405 filing fee. Id. But 

before recommending that plaintiff’s application be denied, I will give him an opportunity to 

respond to this order and to explain why he cannot both pay the filing fee and still afford his 

necessities. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (“An affidavit in 

support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court 

costs and still afford the necessities of life.”). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that within twenty-one days of this order’s entry plaintiff 

may respond to this order and explain why he should still be allowed to proceed in forma 

Case 2:24-cv-03416-JDP Document 4 Filed 12/19/24 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

pauperis. If he fails to do so, I will recommend that plaintiff’s application be denied, and he be 

directed to pay the full filing fee. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-03416-JDP Document 4 Filed 12/19/24 Page 2 of 2