Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01304/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01304-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos Amaya
Plaintiff
Posedel
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS AMAYA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF 

DEPTUTY POSEDEL,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01304-SK 

REFERRAL FOR REASSIGNMENT 

AND REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

Regarding Docket No. 8

Plaintiff Carlos Amaya, through his counsel, failed to submit an adequate application to 

proceed in forma pauperis (an “IFP”) or pay the filing fee for his Complaint. Since Plaintiff has 

not consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) the Court does not 

have authority to make a dispositive ruling in this case. Accordingly, the Court orders that this 

case be REASSIGNED to a District Judge. 

Plaintiff was provided with notice on two occasions that the Court would consider a new 

IFP. Plaintiff was also advised that without a new IFP, he should pay the filing fee or risk 

dismissal of his Complaint. Given that Plaintiff has neither filed a new IFP nor paid the filing fee, 

the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS this action without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

Through his counsel, Plaintiff Carlos Amaya, a detainee at the Alameda County Jail (Dkt 

1, ¶ 4), filed a Complaint for violation of 42 USC § 1983 on March 16, 2016 for an alleged injury 

sustained from an Alameda County Sheriff’s Deputy. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff simultaneously submitted 

an IFP. (Dkt. 2.) On March 21, 2016, this Court denied the IFP without prejudice on the grounds 

that: (1) the applicant did not sign his application or provide documentation to support that the 

party signing the application had power or attorney to do so in his stead; and (2) the applicant did 

Case 3:16-cv-01304-WHA Document 9 Filed 04/25/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

not provide the financial information required in an IFP. (Dkt. 6.) However, the Court specified 

that it “is willing to consider a new application meeting these two obligations.” (Id.)

Having received nothing from Plaintiff by April 6, 2016, the Court issued a further Order 

stating that it was “unclear to the Court whether or not the Plaintiff intends to pursue his claim 

because Plaintiff has neither submitted a new application nor paid the required filing fee.” (Dkt. 

8.) Therefore, Plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee or submit a new IFP no later than April 

20, 2016 or face dismissal of the claim without prejudice. (Id.) Plaintiff has done neither. 

ANALYSIS

According to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a Court may authorize a person to commence an action 

without prepayment of fees or provision of security where the person is a prisoner “who submits 

an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses” which establishes “that 

the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). In 

addition to the affidavit, the 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....” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). “[A] § 1915 affidavit 

must state facts ‘with some particularity, definiteness and certainty’ as to indigency.” Wells v. 

Acosta, 609 Fed.Appx. 430, 431 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226 

1233, (9th Cir. 2015)). 

In the present matter, a form affidavit (AO240 - Application to Proceed in District Court 

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs) signed by Flora Sanchez, with the notation “power of attorney”

next to her signature, was filed by Mr. Amaya’s counsel on his behalf. (Dkt. 2, pg. 2.) No 

documentation was provided confirming that Ms. Sanchez has authority to act pursuant to power 

or attorney or otherwise explaining her relationship to Mr. Amaya. 

As to the content, there was little information regarding Mr. Amaya’s financial status. The 

first page was left blank, other than to indicate that Mr. Amaya is being held at the Federal 

Correctional Institution in Sanford, Arizona. A “0” was provided as to funds in the check or 

savings account and “N/A” as to all other questions. Further, the required certified copy of Mr. 

Amaya’s trust fund account statement was not provided. In light of the foregoing, the Court had 

Case 3:16-cv-01304-WHA Document 9 Filed 04/25/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

no choice but to deny the application. 

Despite the opportunity to rectify the IFP or pay the filing fee, Mr. Amaya did not do so. 

Once the application is denied, a party should be afforded a “reasonable time after a denial of an 

IFP application to pay the fee.” Wells v. Acosta, 609 Fed.Appx. at 431 (emphasis added). Here, 

the Court provided Mr. Amaya with thirty days (from March 21, 2016 until April 20, 2016) and 

two notifications (Dkts. 6 and 8) to either file a new IFP or pay the filing fee. As of the date of 

this Order, thirty-five days after the initial denial, Mr. Amaya has done neither. 

CONCLUSION

Given that an incomplete affidavit signed by an unknown party was submitted on behalf of 

Mr. Amaya in support of his IFP and that despite having receiving two notices from the Court 

suggesting that he remedy the IFP, he has failed to submit a new IFP or submit a filing fee within 

the past thirty-five days, the Court HERBY RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED 

without prejudice. Any party may object to this recommendation within fourteen days of the 

filing date of this order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2016

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01304-WHA Document 9 Filed 04/25/16 Page 3 of 3