Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01566/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01566-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Armando De La Cruz
Defendant
Jordan Tucker
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORDAN TUCKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARMANDO DE LA CRUZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01566-EPG (PC)

ORDER TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(ECF NO. 2)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, 

DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Jordan Tucker is a pro se inmate at Kern Valley State Prison, who filed this 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 20, 2024. (ECF No. 1). Along with his 

complaint, Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2). Both were signed by Plaintiff on November 20, 2024. (ECF No. 1 

at 8; ECF No. 2 at 2). In addition, the Court received a certified Trust Account Statement for 

Plaintiff’s account from California Department of Corrections (CDCR). (ECF No. 6).

The Court normally requires a $405 filing fee for a civil action. However, a federal 

statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, permits a plaintiff to commence a lawsuit without prepaying a filing 

fee. This statute requires “an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner 

possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” § 1915(a)(1). In

Case 1:24-cv-01566-KES-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/15/25 Page 1 of 3
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

addition to filing an affidavit, a prisoner “shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account 

statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately 

preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official 

of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.” § 1915(a)(2). 

In reviewing an IFP application, a court is “entitled to consider [a plaintiff’s] own 

economic choices about how to spend his money.” Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th 

Cir. 1995). For example, the Court can consider that a plaintiff thought it more worthwhile to 

spend his money on commissary items than to pay the filing fee for his civil rights suit. Id.

According to Plaintiff’s trust account statement, Plaintiff received multiple deposits in 

September of 2024 totaling $3,901.62: $1,400 and $224.23 on September 5, 2024; $1,200, 

$600, and $377.39 on September 10, 2024; and $100 on September 17, 2024. (ECF No. 6 at 1). 

In his IFP application, Plaintiff states that he “just received his stimulus payment.” (ECF No. 2 

at 1). 

Even after making substantial withdrawals from the account, when Plaintiff signed his 

IFP application on November 20, 2024, he had $1,078.60 in his trust fund account—sufficient 

funds to pay the filing fee in this action. 

Between November 20, 2024, when Plaintiff signed his complaint and IFP application, 

and December 20, 2024, when they were docketed with this Court, Plaintiff spent additional 

money on unspecified sales and kiosk purchases, reducing his balance to $358.25 on December 

20, 2024. (ECF No. 6 at 1–2). This includes making a large purchase of $199.60 on December 

17, 2024, two days before Plaintiff submitted the documents in this case for e-filing by CDCR. 

(ECF No. 6; ECF No. 1-1). Had Plaintiff not spent this money, he could have paid the full 

filing fee. 

Plaintiff had funds sufficient to pay the filing fee in this action. Therefore, the Court 

recommends that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that 

Plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee of $405.00 for this action in full.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a District Judge to 

this case.

Case 1:24-cv-01566-KES-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/15/25 Page 2 of 3
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

And IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied;

2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $405 filing fee in full should he wish to proceed 

in this case; and

3. Plaintiff be advised that failure to pay the filing fee in full will result in the 

dismissal of this case. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district 

judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any objections shall be limited to no more than 15 

pages including exhibits.

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in 

the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2025 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01566-KES-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/15/25 Page 3 of 3