(PC) Casey v. Haddad ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOMINIQUE ZAFIR CASEY, Case No. 1:21-cv-00855-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 HADDAD, et al., (Doc. 2) 15 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge 17 18 Plaintiff Dominque Zafir Casey is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action. On 19 May 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915. (Doc. 2.) According to the inmate trust account statement submitted by the California 21 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Plaintiff had more than $1,000 in his trust account 22 as of March 4, 2021, and approximately $470 as of May 19, 2021, (Doc. 6). This is enough to pay 23 the $402 filing fee for this action. Therefore, the Court issued an order to show cause why 24 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP should not be denied. (Doc. 8.) In his response to the order, 25 Plaintiff states that he misunderstood the purpose of the IFP application, and that he believed it 26 “was an agreement . . . to take the money” for the filing fee from his account.1 (Doc. 9.) 27 1 Plaintiff also requests that the Court deduct the filing fee from his inmate trust account. (Doc. 9.) However, the Court does not arrange for the payment of filing fees. Plaintiff must arrange for payment of the fee with the 28 appropriate prison personnel. 1 Proceeding “in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 2 116 (9th Cir. 1965). While a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis, 3 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948), “‘the same even-handed 4 care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public 5 expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole 6 or in material part, to pull his own oar,’” Doe v. Educ. Enrichment Sys., No. 15-cv-2628-MMA- 7 MDD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173063, *2 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (citation omitted). 8 Plaintiff has adequate funds to pay the filing fee for this action in full. Accordingly, the 9 Court RECOMMENDS that his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be DENIED. The 10 Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to this action. 11 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of 13 service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 14 Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 15 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 16 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 17 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Sheila K. Oberto 20 Dated: June 17, 2021 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28