Schaupp v. County of Stanislaus ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAROLYN SCHAUPP, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-0849-JLT-SAB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 14 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al, REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE AND DENY MINOR 15 Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 16 WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Docs. 10, 11) 17 18 Carolyn Schaupp, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in this action on behalf of herself 19 and minors L.S., D.S., P.I., and J.B. on July 11, 2022. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff filed an application to 20 proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2.) Concurrently with the 21 complaint and IFP application, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel and motion for 22 permission for electronic case filing (both of which remain pending until the IFP matter has been 23 resolved (Docs. 3, 4)), and a motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. 5), which the court 24 denied on July 15, 2022. (Doc. 7). 25 The magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s initial IFP application without prejudice and 26 ordered her to pay the filing fee or submit a long form IFP application. (Doc. 8.) On July 29, 27 2022, Plaintiff submitted a filing titled “Request for Joinder Under FRCP 19; Motion for 28 Attorney Fees and Cost” (Doc. 9), which appears to contain multiple filings, including: (1) a 1 motion to join minor P.I. in this action as a plaintiff (id. at 1–2); (2) an application for a warrant 2 of arrest in rem (id. at 4–6); (3) a long form IFP application filed by Plaintiff on her own behalf 3 (id. at 7–11); (4) a long form IFP application filed by Plaintiff on behalf of minor P.I. (id. at 12– 4 16); (5) a long form IFP application filed by Plaintiff on behalf of minor L.S. (id. at 17–21); (6) a 5 long form IFP application filed by Plaintiff on behalf of minor J.B. (id. at 22–26); and (7) a long 6 form IFP application filed by Plaintiff on behalf of minor D.S. (id. at 27–31).1 7 On August 2, 2022, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 8 recommending Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP be denied, due to multiple inconsistencies 9 and ambiguities in the application, and an apparent annual income of $107,520—which far 10 eclipses the national poverty guidelines for either a household of one ($13,590) or four ($27,750), 11 depending on Plaintiff’s household size—and that Plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee or 12 face dismissal of the action. (Doc. 10.) The magistrate judge also recommended the IFP 13 applications purportedly filed on behalf of Plaintiff’s minor children be denied without prejudice, 14 as this Court previously determined that Plaintiff may not represent her minor children in this 15 action pro se (Doc. 7), no petition to appoint a guardian ad litem has been submitted, and it 16 appears Plaintiff does not have custody over at least some of the children she seeks to represent. 17 The magistrate judge provided Plaintiff fourteen days to file objections to the findings and 18 recommendations. 19 On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations (Doc. 20 11), as well as a motion to appoint a guardian ad litem for minors P.I., L.S., D.S., and J.B. (Doc. 21 12), a motion for stay and referral to VDRP or ADR for early mediation (Doc. 13), and an ADA 22 disability access litigation application for stay and early mediation (Doc. 14).2 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley 24 United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of 25 the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the magistrate judge’s 26 1 As with Plaintiff’s other pending motions, the joinder motion and motion for attorneys’ fees remain pending until the IFP matter has been resolved. 27 2 As with the other previously identified motions, these additional motions (Docs. 12, 13, 14) will also remain 28 pending until the IFP matter has been resolved. 1 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 2 In her objections to the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff attempts to resolve the 3 noted discrepancies. Plaintiff claims she committed a clerical error in (1) reporting both income 4 wages and disability pay; and (2) that her monthly expenses were $0. (Doc 11 at 3.) Plaintiff also 5 clarifies that she currently lives with her unemployed fiancé and minor J.B. (a household of 6 three); minors D.S., L.C. and P.I. were removed from her home and are not in her custody; she 7 was previously receiving monthly disability payments in the amount of $3,200 but is no longer 8 receiving any disability payments; and she remains employed by Doctors Medical Center but is 9 currently on medical leave. (Id. at 4-5.) 10 Plaintiff does not indicate whether her medical leave is paid or unpaid, though she asserts 11 that “due to being subject to medical Leave[, . . . she] has no employment income.” (Doc. 11 at 12 4.) Further, if the medical leave is paid, it remains unclear whether Plaintiff is receiving the same 13 monthly salary of $5,760 as indicated in her application. Finally, though Plaintiff claimed in her 14 IFP application that her income was expected to change in the next 12 months, she did not 15 provide the required explanation. (See Doc 9 at 11.) Plaintiff concedes that as of July 25, 2022, 16 she was still receiving disability pay. (See Doc. 11 at 3, 5.) She now asserts the reason for stating 17 that her income was expected to change was due to her disability pay ending, which has allegedly 18 now occurred less than a month after filing her IFP application. (See id. at 3, 6.) 19 Notably, Plaintiffs confirms that she has monthly household expenses of $4,998 (Doc. 11 20 at 3), but in addition to the inconsistencies noted by the magistrate judge, Plaintiff’s IFP 21 application indicated insurance expenses in the amount of $1,131, yet Plaintiff wrote in the 22 margin of her application that she has no income to pay these expenses. (Doc. 9 at 10.) 23 Furthermore, Plaintiff claimed the cost of her motor vehicle insurance is $567 per month and also 24 indicated her vehicle installment payment is $567 per month, although the account has been 25 closed due to non-payment. (Id. at 10-11 (listing “loss of vehicle” to explain why she cannot pay 26 the filing fee).) Accordingly, the Court doubts the the amounts owed as well as whether these 27 expenses are, in fact, owed in light of Plaintiff’s concession that the accounts have been closed 28 due to non-payment. This is another example of Plaintiff’s inconsistencies warranting denial. (See 1 | Doc. 10 at 6 (“[T]o the extent that Plaintiff concurrently claims she is not employed and has 2 | significant debts, the contradictory information and lack of clarity in the application renders 3 | Plaintiff's IFP application impermissibly internally inconsistent, which also warrants denial.”).) 4 | Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated August 2, 2022 (Doc. 10), are adopted 6 in full. 7 2. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 9 at 7-11) is DENIED. 8 3. Plaintiff is ordered to submit the appropriate filing fee in full no later than 30 days 9 from the date of service of this order. 10 4. The applications to proceed in forma pauperis filed by plaintiff on behalf of 11 minors P.I. (Doc. 9 at 12-16), L.S. (Doc. 9 at 17-21), J.B. (Doc. 9 at 22—26), and 12 D.S. (Doc. 9 at 27-31) are DENIED without prejudice. 13 5. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of 14 this action. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 | Dated: _September 2, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28