Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02714/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02714-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
C. Hearn
Defendant
Michael E. Jacques
Plaintiff

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 

MICHAEL E. JACQUES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. HEARN, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:23-cv-02714 SCR P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel while confined at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed 

this civil rights action concerning events that took place at Mule Creek State Prison. (ECF No. 1.) 

Plaintiff also filed an in forma pauperis affidavit (“IFP”) in which he stated he was unable to pay 

the court costs and had not received money from other sources over the last twelve months. (ECF 

No. 2 at 1.) 

 On June 13, 2024, the magistrate judge previously assigned to this case denied plaintiff’s 

application to proceed IFP, finding plaintiff was able to pay the court costs and was not entitled to 

IFP status on November 2, 2023, the day on which he signed the IFP affidavit and constructively 

filed the complaint. (ECF No. 6 at 2.) To the contrary, plaintiff’s trust account statement indicated 

the account contained $2,297.63 on that date. (Id. at 1.) It was specifically noted that plaintiff had 

received “TRACS TRANSFER” funds in the amount of $2,012.76 on October 13, 2023, which 

Case 2:23-cv-02714-DJC-SCR Document 9 Filed 10/16/24 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 

were not disclosed on the IFP affidavit. (Id.) Plaintiff was ordered to either submit the appropriate 

court costs to the Clerk of the Court, or “clarify his financial condition and attempt to demonstrate 

financial hardship in a renewed IFP application” along with an explanation why the incoming 

funds were not disclosed on the IFP affidavit (Id. at 3.) 

 Plaintiff has responded to the court’s order explaining why the incoming “TRACS 

TRANSFER” funds were not disclosed on the IFP affidavit signed on November 2, 2023. (ECF 

No. 7.) Plaintiff states he was unaware of the funds. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff additionally states he had 

received and relied on a statement report dated September 12, 2023, which did not reflect the 

credits at issue. (Id.) 

 In order to commence an action, a plaintiff must either pay both the $350.00 filing fee and 

the $55.00 administrative fee for a civil action or be granted leave to proceed IFP.1 See 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1914(a), 1915(a). The court may authorize the commencement of an action “without 

prepayment of fees or security therefor” by an individual who submits an affidavit evidencing an 

inability to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

“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.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 

F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 

331, 339 (1948)). While § 1915(a) does not require a litigant to demonstrate “absolute 

destitution,” Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339, the applicant must nonetheless show inability to pay the 

fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). A district court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to 

proceed IFP. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). “[P]ermission to proceed in 

forma pauperis is itself a matter of privilege and not right[.]” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 

1231 (9th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). 

The undersigned will accept plaintiff’s explanation that plaintiff was not aware of the trust 

account deposits at issue when he signed the IFP affidavit and constructively filed the complaint. 

1

 If leave to file in forma pauperis is granted, plaintiff will still be required to pay the $350.00 

filing fee but will be allowed to pay it in installments. Litigants proceeding in forma pauperis are 

not required to pay the $55.00 administrative fee. 

Case 2:23-cv-02714-DJC-SCR Document 9 Filed 10/16/24 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 

Accepting plaintiff’s explanation, the undersigned will not recommend that this case be dismissed 

for an untrue allegation of poverty. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 n.8 (9th Cir. 

2015) (“To dismiss [a] complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), a showing of bad faith is required, not 

merely inaccuracy.”). 

 However, plaintiff has made an inadequate showing of indigency. Plaintiff must pay the 

court costs in order to proceed with this case. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to pay the court 

costs will result in a recommendation that the application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied 

and this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within 30 days from the 

date of this order, plaintiff shall submit the court costs in the amount of $405 in order to proceed 

with this action. 

DATED: October 15, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-02714-DJC-SCR Document 9 Filed 10/16/24 Page 3 of 3