(PC) Matlock v. Kern County ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD A. MATLOCK, Case No. 1:19-cv-01368-LJO-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND REQUIRING 14 KERN COUNTY, et al., PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE TO PROCEED WITH THIS ACTION 15 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 10, 11) 16 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff Richard A. Matlock is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 4, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 22 recommendations that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied on the 23 ground that Plaintiff has sufficient assets to pay the filing fee in full, and that Plaintiff be required 24 to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action. (ECF No. 11.) The 25 findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 26 thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service. (Id.) Plaintiff timely filed objections 27 on December 26, 2019. (ECF No. 12.) 28 In his objections, Plaintiff contends that this Court should decline to adopt the Magistrate 1 Judge’s findings and recommendations and grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis 2 because he has no guarantees of receiving any money from his mother and/or grandmother, the 3 prison awards inmates who show financial responsibility with a lower security classification, and 4 he uses the funds in his prison trust account to purchase approximately 75% of his sustenance 5 from the commissary because the food provided by the Federal Bureau of Prisons is “not fit for 6 human beings.” (ECF No. 12, at 2.) 7 However, the Court is “entitled to consider [Plaintiff’s] own economic choices about how 8 to spend his money, as between his filing fee and comforts purchased in the prison 9 commissary[.]” Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995). “If the inmate thinks a 10 more worthwhile use of his funds would be to buy [food from the commissary] … than to file a 11 civil rights suit, [the inmate] has demonstrated an implied evaluation of the suit that the district 12 court is entitled to honor.” Id. (citation omitted). In this case, Plaintiff has clearly prioritized 13 commissary purchases over his obligation to pay the filing fee in this action. More than a 14 thousand dollars was deposited into Plaintiff’s account between April 30, 2019 and September 30, 15 2019, the date when this action was filed. Therefore, while Plaintiff had more than enough 16 money to retain some funds in order to pay the filing fee for this action, Plaintiff chose instead to 17 spend his money in other ways, such as on purchases from the commissary. Consequently, the 18 Court finds that Plaintiff did not qualify as impoverished when he filed this action. 19 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 20 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 21 objections, the Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and 22 by proper analysis. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 4, 2019, (ECF No. 11), 25 are adopted in full; 26 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 10), is DENIED; 27 3. Within twenty-one (21) days following the date of service of this order, Plaintiff 28 shall pay the $400.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action; 1 4. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to pay the filing fee within the specified time, 2 this action will be dismissed; and 3 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further 4 proceedings. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: January 4, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28