Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
8
ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to File a Second Amended Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/6/2011. (Filing Deadline: 6/22/2011.) (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 pursuant to
19
28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 3). Following the Court’s order to clarify his financial status, Plaintiff filed
20
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). Since that time, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff’s parole agent, explaining
26
Plaintiff is not currently incarcerated, but was incarcerated from August 7, 2002 to October 22, 2008.
27
(Doc. 7). Because Plaintiff is not incarcerated, it is not necessary that the Court receive a ledger of
28
Plaintiff’s prison transactions.
1
1
Moreover, the letter from Plaintiff’s parole agent is not a substitute for Plaintiff filing an
2
amended IFP motion as ordered by the Court on May 11, 2011. It does not explain whether Plaintiff
3
receives “general grant” money or, if so, how much he receives and expects to continue to receive.
4
This information is necessary for the Court to ascertain whether Plaintiff receives sufficient income
5
to be able to pay the Court filing fee. Moreover, in light of the information provided by the parole
6
agent, it is unclear why Plaintiff asserted in his second IFP motion that he was incarcerated and being
7
housed at the state prison in Avenal, California. As previously noted by the Court, Plaintiff did not
8
disclose his receipt of funds on his first application, though he signed the document under penalty of
9
perjury.
10
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
11
1.
Plaintiff SHALL FILE, within fourteen days of this order, a second amended
12
application to proceed in forma pauperis, which includes the amount of income
13
received through the “general grant” and the amount Plaintiff expects to continue to
14
receive; and
15
16
2.
Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order will result in a
recommendation that his IFP motion be denied.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
Dated: June 6, 2011
9j7khi
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
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?
