(PC) Harris v. Zavala ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARREN L. HARRIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01126-DAD-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE DENIED 14 A. ZAVALA, FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. (Doc. Nos. 9) 16 17 Plaintiff Darren L. Harris, who is prisoner, initiated this action by filing a pro se civil 18 rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 26, 2021. (Doc. No. 1). After being 19 ordered by the Court and receiving an enlargement of time, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to 20 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP motion”) on September 27, 2021. (Doc. No. 9). In his IFP 21 motion, Plaintiff acknowledges he received three checks in the amount of $1200.00, $1400.00, 22 and $600.00 deposited into his inmate account. (Id. at 2). At the time he filed his IFP motion, 23 Plaintiff had a $682.00 balance in his inmate trust account. (Id.). A review of the inmate trust 24 account statement submitted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 25 shows Plaintiff withdrew nearly $2,000.00 between the date he filed the Complaint and the date 26 he filed the IFP motion. (Id. at 4-5). 27 The court is required to “dismiss the case at any time if the court determines the allegation 28 1 | of poverty is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). It appears Plaintiff had more than sufficient 2 | funds in his inmate trust account to pay the $402.00 filing fee in this case when he initiated this 3 | action but chose to delay the filling of his IFP motion and withdraw the bulk of his assets in the 4 | interim. 5 Proceeding “in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 6 | 116 (9th Cir. 1965). A determination of indigency rests within the court’s discretion. California 7 | Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), reversed on other grounds, 506 8 | U.S. 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its 9 | sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute's requirement of 10 | indigency.”). While IFP applicants need not be “destitute” a showing of indigence is required. 11 | Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). When “an applicant has 12 | the wherewithal to pay court costs, or some part thereof, without depriving himself and his 13 || dependents (if any there be) of the necessities of life, then he should be required, in the First Circuit’s 14 | phrase, to ‘put his money where his mouth 1s.’” Williams v. Latins, 877 F.2d 65 (9th Cir. 1989). Due 15 | to his incarceration, Plaintiff does not incur expenses in prison for necessities such as sustenance, 16 | housing and medical care and is not likely paying for necessities of life to any dependents. Jd. 17 | Plaintiff therefore is ordered to show cause why he should be permitted to proceed IFP. Failure 18 || to respond to this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to 19 | obey acourt order. 20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 21 Within fourteen days from receipt of this Order, Plaintiff shall either: (1) withdraw his 22 || motion to proceed in forma pauperis and direct CDCR to pay the $402.00 filing fee; or (2) show 23 | cause why he meets the indigence requirement to proceed in forma pauperis. 24 2 Dated: _ October 13, 2021 oe Zh. Sareh Back 6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28