(PC)Hill v. Agonone ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYMEYON HILL, Case No. 2:22-cv-01845-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A 13 v. DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS CASE 14 J. AGONONE, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO 15 Defendants. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED 16 ECF No. 2 17 18 19 Plaintiff Cymeyon Hill is a civil detainee proceeding without counsel in this civil rights 20 action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, he alleges that defendants Agonone, 21 Scotland, Roman, Lomeli, Lavina, Newton, Villalobos, and Capossele violated his First and 22 Fourteenth Amendment rights. ECF No. 1. Alongside his complaint, he filed an application to 23 proceed in forma pauperis, attesting that he is not employed, he has not received any money in 24 the last twelve months, and that he has no money or assets. ECF No. 2 at 1-2. A subsequently 25 filed trust account statement showed plaintiff’s balance to be $4,656. ECF No. 4. After 26 reviewing plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and his trust fund statement, I 27 ordered plaintiff to show cause and to explain why he should be allowed to proceed in forma 28 pauperis. ECF No. 7. In response, plaintiff neither provided information about his finances nor 1 stated that he is unable to pay the filing fee and other court costs; instead, he claimed that he did 2 not accept the court’s offer to contract for subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 8. 3 In reviewing an application to proceed in forma pauperis for a civil detainee, the court 4 looks to whether the plaintiff has submitted an affidavit that shows he “is unable to pay [the filing 5 fee] or give security therefore.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A court may deny an application to 6 proceed in forma pauperis if “the allegation of poverty is untrue.” Id. § 1915(e)(2)(A); see Hill v. 7 Torres, No. 2:22-cv-00970-KJM-EFB (PC), 2022 WL 3579698, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2022) 8 (denying plaintiff civil detainee’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because his trust 9 account balance of $3,818.37 contradicted his allegations of poverty). Here, plaintiff’s attestation 10 that he cannot pay the filing fee is contradicted by his trust fund statement, which shows a 11 balance of $4,656 at the time of filing. 12 More fundamentally, an application to proceed in forma pauperis is sufficient when it 13 shows “that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be 14 able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de 15 Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). In determining whether a plaintiff meets the poverty 16 threshold to qualify for in forma pauperis status, courts generally distinguish between “prisoners, 17 [who] have limited overhead,” and non-incarcerated plaintiffs “who must pay for the roof over 18 [their] head[s] and the food on [their] table[s] or go without shelter and sustenance.” Escobedo v. 19 Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1236 (9th Cir. 2015). Plaintiff is a civil detainee and, as such, his 20 basic necessities—like shelter, food, and medical care—are provided for him by the state. Thus, 21 his situation is akin to that of a prisoner, and his possession of even modest assets may preclude 22 in forma pauperis status. See Hill v. Martini, No. 2:22-cv-01603-KJM-AC (P), 2022 WL 23 17488310, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2022) (“For a civil detainee like plaintiff, who also has 24 ‘limited overhead’ by reason of his civil detention, the Escobedo decision might suggest a 25 different calculation [from a non-incarcerated plaintiff].”). As noted above, plaintiff had more 26 than sufficient funds to cover the filing fee. ECF Nos. 2 & 4. Accordingly, I recommend that 27 plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. 28 1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 2 | United States District Judge to this case. 3 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, be denied. 5 2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $402 filing fee within fourteen days from the date of any 6 | order adopting these findings and recommendations and be warned that failure to do so will result 7 | in the dismissal of this action. 8 I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. 9 | § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 10 | Eastern District of California. The parties may, within 14 days of the service of the findings and 11 | recommendations, file written objections to the findings and recommendations with the court. 12 | Such objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 13 || Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings and recommendations under 28 14 US.C. § 636(b))(C). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ( 1 Sy — Dated: _ February 21, 2023 q——— 18 JEREMY D. PETERSON 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28