(HC) Aranzubia v. Merlak et al, No. 1:2019cv01569 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Assign District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 2 Petitioner's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED and Petitioner be Required to Pay the $5.00 Filing Fee re 1 Petition f or Writ of Habeas Corpus signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/5/2019. This case has been assigned to Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill and Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. The new case number is 1:19-cv-01569-LJO-JLT (HC). Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within twenty-one (21) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONICO ARANZUBIA, Petitioner, 12 13 14 v. STEVEN MERLAK, et al., Respondents. 15 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01569-JLT (HC) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. No. 2) On November 4, 2019, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus along with an 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis. Examination of his application to proceed in forma pauperis 19 and his trust account statement reveals that Petitioner is able to afford the costs of this action. 20 Specifically, in the six months prior to filing, Petitioner has had average monthly deposits of $137.87 21 to his account, and his current balance is $85.27. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma 22 pauperis should be denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Therefore, the Court RECOMMENDS the 23 following: 24 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be DENIED; and 25 2. Petitioner be required to pay the $5.00 filing fee within thirty days of the Court’s order 26 adopting these Findings and Recommendations. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 1 1 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within twenty- 2 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 3 objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 4 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 5 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 6 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 5, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
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.
