McCarthy et al v. County of Sacramento et al
Filing
6
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 6/21/2011 DENYING plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP. (Marciel, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
Desiree McCarthy, Individually
and As Guardian Ad Litem for
minors T.G., D.G, and T.H.,
Plaintiffs,
10
v.
11
12
13
14
15
16
County fo Sacramento, Faye
Rutherford, Jana Thoftne, Brandy
Lomack, Christy Bomback, Marlene
Albright, George Moschske, City
of Rancho Cordova, and DOE
Officers,
Defendants.
________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:11-cv-01273-GEB-KJN
ORDER
17
Plaintiff Desiree McCarthy has applied to proceed in forma
18
pauperis (“IFP”) in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Subsection
19
(a)(1) of § 1915 prescribes:
23
[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the
commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit .
. . without prepayment of fees or security
therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that
includes a statement of all assets such [person]
possesses and that the person is unable to pay such
fees or give security therefore.
24
Plaintiff’s affidavit filed in support of her IFP application
25
is incomplete. Although she avers she is unemployed, she does not
26
provide the date of her last employment, amount of “take-home salary or
27
wages and pay period,” or contact information for her last employer, as
28
required
20
21
22
under
question
2(b)
of
her
1
affidavit.
Further,
although
1
Plaintiff declares she has received “disability or workers compensation
2
payments” in the last twelve months, she does not provide the source of
3
money, amount received and what she expects to continue to receive, as
4
required under question 3. Therefore, the motion is denied without
5
prejudice.
6
Dated:
June 21, 2011
7
8
9
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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?
