Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01031/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01031-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michalla C. Alfaro Brittany
Plaintiff
SacNet
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 

MICHALLA C. ALFARO BRITTANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SACNET, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-1031-GEB-EFB PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff, proceeding in pro se, has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1

 ECF No. 2. Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit in support of her 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Id. 

 Pursuant to federal statute, a filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil action 

in federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). This court also requires a $50 administrative fee. 

The court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees and costs or 

security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit showing that he is unable to pay such 

costs or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). An in forma pauperis applicant must 

demonstrate that because of her poverty, she cannot meet court costs and still provide herself and 

her dependents with the necessities of life. Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 

 1

 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to 

Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:16-cv-01031-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 05/18/16 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

(11th Cir. 2004) (affidavit is sufficient if it represents that the litigant is “unable to pay for the 

court fees and costs, and to provide necessities for himself and his dependents”) (citing Adkins v. 

E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948)); see also Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. 

Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc., 865 F.2d 22, 23 (2d Cir. 1988) (denying in forma pauperis

status where applicant had a net income of approximately $20,000). 

 Plaintiff’s affidavit indicates that she receives about $1,500 “in a bracket,” and that she 

has $45,400 in checking and savings accounts. ECF No. 2 at 1-2. She further states that she has 

a few adult children and grandchildren to whom she provides some financial assistance. Id. at 6. 

Based on those averments, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has 

insufficient assets to pay the filing fee and costs and provide the necessities of life to herself and 

her dependents. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis be denied, and that plaintiff be given thirty days in which to pay the filing fee of 

$400. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: May 17, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-01031-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 05/18/16 Page 2 of 2