Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
10
ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to File a Second Amended Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/16/2011. Filing Deadline: 6/30/2011. (Leon-Guerrero, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
EDWARD L. HALL,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________ )
Case No.: 1:11-cv-00693 JLT
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A
SECOND AMENDED APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Plaintiff Edward L. Hall (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this action. Plaintiff filed his
18
Complaint on May 2, 2011 (Doc. 1), along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
19
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 3). Following the Court’s order to clarify his financial status,
20
Plaintiff filed a second motion on May 9, 2011. (Doc. 5).
21
Plaintiff’s second motion raised issues because of incongruities between the two applications,
22
including whether Plaintiff was incarcerated and whether he receives “general grant” funds. As a
23
result, the Court issued an order that Plaintiff file an amended application including the ledger of his
24
transactions at Avenal State Prison and the amount of income received through the “general grant.”
25
(Doc. 6). Following the Court’s order, Plaintiff’s parole agent sent a letter to the Court, which
26
explained Plaintiff is not currently incarcerated, but was incarcerated from August 7, 2002 to
27
October 22, 2008. (Doc. 7). However, the letter from Plaintiff’s parole agent was not a substitute
28
for Plaintiff filing an amended IFP motion, and the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a second amended
1
1
application “which includes the amount of income received through the ‘general grant’ and the
2
amount Plaintiff expects to continue to receive.” (Doc. 8 at 2) (emphasis added).
3
Plaintiff filed his second amended motion on June 13, 2011 (Doc. 9), in which he indicated
4
he received $200 from “general relief.” Id. at 1. However, Plaintiff failed to include information on
5
how much he expected to continue to receive from general relief, if any. This information is
6
necessary for the Court to ascertain whether Plaintiff has sufficient income to pay the Court filing
7
fee. See Jackson v. California, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIST 90612, at * 2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2010)
8
(denying the plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP because he failed “to disclose the amount he has
9
received and expects to receive” in social security benefits). Likewise, Plaintiff failed to state the
10
last date of his employment, the salary or wages he received in a pay period, and the name and
11
address of his employer. Consequently, Plaintiff has failed to file a complete motion to proceed IFP
12
such that the Court can determine Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee.
13
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
14
1.
Plaintiff SHALL FILE, within fourteen days of this order, a complete third amended
15
application to proceed in forma pauperis, which includes the amount of income
16
received through the “general grant” and the amount Plaintiff expects to continue to
17
receive; and
18
19
2.
Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in denial of his
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
Dated: June 16, 2011
9j7khi
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
