(PS) Ireland v. United Parcel Service ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEROME IRELAND, JR., Case No. 1:21-cv-01801-DAD-SKO 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, (Doc. 2) 15 Defendant. 21-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 On December 22, 2021, Plaintiff Jerome Ireland, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed a complaint, 18 along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 19 (Docs. 1, 2.) On January 3, 2022, the undersigned issued an order to show cause why Plaintiff’s 20 IFP application should not be denied (the “OSC”), as Plaintiff indicated in his application that his 21 “seasonal” gross pay/wages and take-home pay/wages are both $8,000,000,000 (Doc. 2 at 1.). 22 (Doc. 3.) On January 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a response to the OSC and submitted an amended IFP 23 application. (Doc. 4.) 24 As indicated in the OSC, “[p]roceeding in forma pauperis “is a privilege not a right.” Smart 25 v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). An indigent party may be granted permission to 26 proceed in forma pauperis upon submitting an affidavit showing his or her inability to pay the 27 required fees. 28 USC § 1915(a) (“Section 1915(a)”). The determination of whether a plaintiff is indigent and therefore unable to pay the filing fee falls within the court’s sound discretion. 1 California Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (reversed on other 2 grounds). 3 Plaintiff’s response to the OSC is verbose, confusing, and rambling, and it is difficult to 4 discern Plaintiff’s explanation for why his IFP application should not be denied. Furthermore, upon 5 review of Plaintiff’s amended IFP application, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has adequate 6 funds to pay the $402 filing fee in this action. Plaintiff’s application indicates that his seasonal 7 gross pay/wages are $16,000,000,000.00 and his take-home pay/wages are $8,000,000,000.00. 8 (See Doc. 4.) Plaintiff also owns two houses worth $28,000,000.00 and $2,000,000.00, 9 respectively, in addition to a Mercedes-Benz vehicle worth $117,950.00, a BMW vehicle worth 10 $53,640.00, and a Bombardier jet worth $6,000,000,000.00. (See id.) Based on these 11 representations, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has not made the showing required by Section 12 1915(a) that he is unable to pay the required fees for this action. Accordingly, the undersigned 13 recommends that Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP be denied. 14 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 15 1. The application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be DENIED pursuant to 28 16 U.S.C. § 1915(a); and 17 2. Plaintiff be ORDERED to pay the $402 initial filing fee in full to proceed with this 18 action. 19 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 20 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one 21 (21) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 22 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 23 Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file objections within the 24 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” 25 on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 26 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 Dated: January 11, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27