(PC) Sanchez v. Wollet et al, No. 1:2024cv00649 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2024)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 9 Findings and Recommendations, DENYING Plaintiff's 4 Motion to Proceed IFP, and DIRECTING Plaintiff to PAY Filing Fee in Full within 30 Days signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/27/2024. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW J. SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 17 v. MARY ANN WOLLET, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:24-cv-0649 JLT EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE IN FULL WITHIN 30 DAYS (Docs. 4, 9) Matthew Sanchez seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, in which he seeks to hold the 18 defendant liable for violating his civil rights while incarcerated at the Bob Wiley Detention Facility. 19 (See Doc. 1, 4.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff’s allegation of poverty is untrue. (Doc. 9 at 3.) The 20 magistrate judge observed that “Plaintiff received routine deposits” into his trust account and “had a 21 balance of $221.51 when he submitted his IFP application claiming he has zero cash and zero assets.” 22 (Id. at 3-4.) The magistrate judge noted that in response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, “Plaintiff 23 admits his statements were untrue and that he knew they were untrue at the time they were made.” (Id. at 24 3.) The magistrate judge observed, “Plaintiff is intentionally deceiving prison authorities in order to 25 allow other inmates to avoid prison rules regarding their spending,” because he allowed other inmates to 26 put money on his account “to beat the system,” when others were not permitted to make purchases on 27 their own accounts. (Id.) The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff acted in bad faith, because he 28 diverted funds prior to filing this action and seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id.) The magistrate 1 1 judge noted it was “within the Court’s discretion to dismiss this case with prejudice” based upon the 2 finding that Plaintiff acted in bad faith but indicated “the Court will stop short of recommending the 3 harshest sanction in this case.” (Id. at 4.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended “Plaintiff be 4 required to pay the filing fee in full should he wish to proceed with this case.” (Id.) 5 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 6 objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 9 at 5.) The Court advised Plaintiff the “failure to file 7 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id. at 5, citing 8 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the 9 time to do so has passed. 10 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having 11 carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 12 supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. 14 The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 20, 2024 (Doc. 9) are ADOPTED in full. 15 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4) is DENIED. 16 3. Plaintiff SHALL pay in full the $405.00 filing fee within 30 days of the date of service of 17 this order. 18 Plaintiff is advised that failure to pay the required filing fee as ordered will result in the 19 dismissal of this action without prejudice. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 27, 2024 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.
