Jones v. Pond et al, No. 1:2023cv01489 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Denying Plaintiff's 4 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Requiring Plaintiff to Pay the Filing Fee signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/22/2023. Referred to Judge Thurston; Objections to F&R due within Fourteen-Days. (Flores, E)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBIN A. JONES, Plaintiff, 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE v. 13 14 Case No. 1:23-cv-01489-SAB RACHEL POND, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 (ECF No. 4) 18 19 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 20 Robin A. Jones, proceeding pro se, filed this action on November 21, 2023. (ECF No. 1.) 21 Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee in this action and instead filed an application to proceed in 22 forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.) On October 20, 2023, the Court 23 denied the application to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to file a long form 24 application. (ECF No. 3.) On November 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a long form application. (ECF 25 No. 4.) 26 In order to proceed in court without prepayment of the filing fee, a plaintiff must submit 27 an affidavit demonstrating they are “unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The right to proceed without prepayment of fees in a civil case is a 1 1 privilege and not a right. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 2 506 U.S. 194, 198 n.2 (1993); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) 3 (“permission to proceed in forma pauperis is itself a matter of privilege and not right; denial of 4 in forma pauperis status does not violate the applicant’s right to due process”). A plaintiff need 5 not be absolutely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis and the application is sufficient if it 6 states that due to his poverty he is unable to pay the costs and still be able to provide himself and 7 his dependents with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 8 331, 339 (1948). Whether to grant or deny an application to proceed without prepayment of fees 9 is an exercise of the district court’s discretion. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1236 (9th 10 Cir. 2015). 11 In the long form application, Plaintiff first proffers that her average monthly income over 12 the past 12 months totals $7,501.80 from the following sources: (1) $3,405 from employment; 13 (2) $2,556.80 from retirement; and (3) $1,540 in disability. (ECF No. 4 at 1-2.) Plaintiff 14 proffers her expected income over the next 12 months contains no employment income because 15 she fell ill with COVID and associated illnesses in June of 2023. (Id. at 5.) Thus, Plaintiff 16 claims her expected income for the next 12 months is $4,096.80. (Id. at 1-2.) 17 Plaintiff claims to currently have $120.35 in one checking account; $433.23 in another checking 18 account; and $122.33 in a savings account, for a total of $675.91. (Id. at 2.) 19 Plaintiff claims no dependents. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff claims expenses in the amount of: (1) 20 $1,800 in rent; (2) $200.63 for utilities; (3) $250 for food; (4) $143 for medical and dental; (5) 21 $100 for transportation; (6) $43.08 for renter’s insurance; (7) $64 for life insurance; (8) $338 for 22 health insurance; and (9) $168.31 for auto insurance; and (10) $250 for a credit card. (Id. at 4.) 23 This totals $3,357.02 per month in claimed expenses. 24 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s calculated total entered in the application is $3,696.85. 25 Therefore it appears the monthly expenses are $339.83 less than the Plaintiff’s proffered total. 26 Plaintiff also claims the following assets: (1) a 2015 Ranger Rover Land Rover proffered to be 27 valued at $10,000; and (2) a 2001 Audi TT proffered to be valued at $6,000. (Id. at 3.) 28 In assessing whether a certain income level meets the poverty threshold under Section 2 1 1915(a)(1), courts look to the federal poverty guidelines developed each year by the Department 2 of Health and Human Services. See, e.g., Boulas v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 1:18-cv-01163-LJO3 BAM, 2018 WL 6615075, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2018) (applying federal poverty 4 guidelines to deny IFP application); Paco v. Myers, No. CIV. 13-00701 ACK, 2013 WL 5 6843057 (D. Haw. Dec. 26, 2013); Lint v. City of Boise, No. CV09-72-S-EJL, 2009 WL 6 1149442, at *2 (D. Idaho Apr. 28, 2009) (and cases cited therein). 7 Taking Plaintiff’s proffer of no dependents, the 2023 Poverty Guidelines provide that the 8 poverty guideline for the 48 contiguous states for a household of one is $14,580. 2023 Poverty 9 Guidelines, https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines (last 10 visited November 22, 2023). 11 Even considering Plaintiff’s stated expected monthly income of $4,096.80 due to 12 unemployment ($49,161.60 per year), the Court finds the information contained in the 13 application is inconsistent with a finding of poverty based on such income, stated expenses, and 14 stated assets. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed 16 in forma pauperis be DENIED and Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $402.00 filing fee for this 17 action. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge to be assigned to 19 this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within 20 fourteen (14) days of service of this recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections to 21 this findings and recommendations with the court. Such a document should be captioned 22 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The District Judge will 23 review the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 24 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 25 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 26 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 27 / / / 28 / / / 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to randomly 1 2 assign this matter to a District Judge. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: November 22, 2023 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.