(PC) Porter v. Rivas ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY JAMES PORTER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00105-BAK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED 14 O. RIVAS, et al., 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Larry James Porter (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 18 rights action. On January 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2.) According to the certified trust account statement 20 submitted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Plaintiff had $1,017 in 21 his inmate trust account as of December 29, 2021, less than one month before his filed his 22 motion. (Doc. 7.) This was more than enough to pay the $402 filing fee for this action. Plaintiff 23 then withdrew $1,000 from his account, (see id.); he must therefore show why he is entitled to 24 proceed in forma pauperis. 25 Proceeding “in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 26 116 (9th Cir. 1965). While a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis, 27 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948), “‘the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public 1 expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole 2 or in material part, to pull his own oar,’” Doe v. Educ. Enrichment Sys., No. 15-cv-2628-MMA- 3 MDD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173063, *2 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (citation omitted). Hence, “the court 4 shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the [plaintiff’s] allegation of poverty 5 is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). 6 According to his inmate trust account, Plaintiff had adequate funds to pay the filing fee for 7 this action. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, within 21 days of the date of service of 8 this order, to show cause in writing why his motion to proceed IFP should not be denied. Failure 9 to respond to this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for 10 failure to obey a court order. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: January 27, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27