(PS) Slade v. Grant Joint Union High School District et al, No. 2:2005cv01483 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2006)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge Peter A. Nowinski on 1/18/06 Recommending that pltf's application to proceed IFP 10 be denied. The Court VACATES its Order 9 filed 12/12/05, and Case Re-opened. Motion referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. (Girgis, C) Modified on 1/18/2006 (Girgis, C). Modified on 3/31/2006 (Krueger, M).

Download PDF
(PS) Slade v. Grant Joint Union High School District et al Case 2:05-cv-01483-MCE-PAN Doc. 12 Document 12 Filed 01/18/2006 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 ELIZABETH SINGLETON SLADE, Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 16 CIV. S-05-1483 MCE PAN PS GRANT JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, JACQUES WHITFIELD, HELLEN VERELLA, and DENNIS HENNING, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 Defendants. 18 -o0o19 20 21 22 The court vacates its order filed December 12, 2005, and issues these findings and recommendations. On July 22, 2005, plaintiff filed an incomplete 23 application to proceed in forma pauperis and a proposed 24 complaint. 25 directed plaintiff to provide a complete application and an 26 accounting of her monthly income and expenses. By order filed September 30, 2005, this court Plaintiff timely Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-01483-MCE-PAN Document 12 Filed 01/18/2006 Page 2 of 3 1 filed an amended application but failed to include her expenses; 2 her inclusion of a receipt for airline travel to attend a “new 3 wife class” at a military base raised additional questions. 4 November 10, 2005, the court directed plaintiff to “further 5 supplement her amended application to proceed in forma pauperis 6 with an itemization of her monthly expenses [and] an explanation 7 of her military affiliation and marital status.” 8 failed timely to respond to the court’s November 10 order and on 9 December 12, 2005, the court directed the closing of this file. On Plaintiff On December 28, 2005, plaintiff again filed a motion to 10 11 proceed in forma pauperis and a letter in which she states she 12 was married September 2, 2005, but does not know the amount of 13 her husband’s income as the “money is his and hers” and she alone 14 supports her two children plus “1% a month” to her goddaughter. 15 Also vague is the amount of plaintiff’s own employment income, 16 which she identifies differently on each of her applications, 17 viz., $600 to $700 per month on her first application, $1900 a 18 month on her second application, and $1200 per month “take home” 19 on her third application. Plaintiff avers she has sought to meet the court’s 20 21 instructions and does not know what else to provide, beseeching 22 the court for further instructions. 23 made every effort to identify the information plaintiff must 24 submit. 25 attributable income remains a mystery due to the variable amount 26 of her own stated income and her avowed disassociation from the In reality, the court has Despite three applications, plaintiff’s legally 2 Case 2:05-cv-01483-MCE-PAN Document 12 Filed 01/18/2006 Page 3 of 3 1 income of her husband despite California’s community property 2 laws. 3 subsidize her lawsuit based on such vague allegations. Plaintiff’s fellow taxpayers should not be required to I find, therefore, that plaintiff’s affidavit fails to 4 5 demonstrate that because of poverty she cannot pay or give 6 security for court costs and still be able to provide herself and 7 her dependents with the necessities of life. 8 Dupont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Accordingly, I recommend that plaintiff’s application to 9 10 See Adkins v. E.I. proceed in forma pauperis be denied. These findings and recommendation are submitted to the 11 12 Honorable Morrison C. England, the United States District Judge 13 assigned to this case. 14 objections may be filed within ten (10) days after being served 15 with these findings and recommendation. 16 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 17 Recommendation.” 18 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 19 order. 20 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Further written The document should be The failure to file objections within the Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: January 18, 2006. 21 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski PETER A. NOWINSKI Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 3

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.