(PC) Hill v. McGeffen ( 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-01524-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED 14 McGEFFEN, et al., ECF No. 2 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Cymeyon Hill is a civil detainee proceeding without counsel in this civil rights 18 action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. With his complaint, he filed an application to proceed in 19 forma pauperis, attesting that he is not employed, has not received any money in the last twelve 20 months, and has no money or assets. ECF No. 2 at 1-2. A subsequently filed trust account 21 statement showed plaintiff’s balance to be $4,656. ECF No. 7. After reviewing plaintiff’s 22 application to proceed in forma pauperis and his trust fund statement, I ordered plaintiff to show 23 cause why he should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 10. In response, 24 plaintiff neither provided information about his finances nor stated that he is unable to pay the 25 filing fee and other court costs; instead, he claimed that he did not accept the court’s offer to 26 contract for subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 11. 27 In reviewing an application to proceed in forma pauperis for a civil detainee, the court 28 looks to whether the plaintiff has submitted an affidavit that shows he “is unable to pay [the filing 1 fee] or give security therefore.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). A court may deny an application to 2 proceed in forma pauperis if “the allegation of poverty is untrue.” Id. § 1915(e)(2)(A); see Hill v. 3 Torres, No. 2:22-cv-00970-KJM-EFB (PC), 2022 WL 3579698, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2022) 4 (denying plaintiff civil detainee’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because his trust 5 account balance of $3,818.37 contradicted his allegations of poverty). Here, plaintiff’s attestation 6 that he cannot pay the filing fee is contradicted by his trust fund statement, which shows a 7 balance of $4,656 at the time of filing. 8 More fundamentally, an application to proceed in forma pauperis is sufficient when it 9 shows “that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be 10 able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de 11 Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). In determining whether a plaintiff meets the poverty 12 threshold to qualify for in forma pauperis status, courts generally distinguish between “prisoners, 13 [who] have limited overhead,” and non-incarcerated plaintiffs “who must pay for the roof over 14 [their] head[s] and the food on [their] table[s] or go without shelter and sustenance.” Escobedo v. 15 Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1236 (9th Cir. 2015). Plaintiff is a civil detainee and, as such, his 16 basic necessities—like shelter, food, and medical care—are provided for him by the state. Thus, 17 his situation is in many ways akin to that of a prisoner, and his possession of even modest assets 18 may preclude in forma pauperis status. See Hill v. Martini, No. 2:22-cv-01603-KJM-AC (P), 19 2022 WL 17488310, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2022) (“For a civil detainee like plaintiff, who also 20 has ‘limited overhead’ by reason of his civil detention, the Escobedo decision might suggest a 21 different calculation [from a non-incarcerated plaintiff].”). As noted above, plaintiff had more 22 than sufficient funds to cover the filing fee. ECF No. 7. Accordingly, I recommend that 23 plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. 24 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 25 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, be denied. 26 2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $402 filing fee within fourteen days from the date of any 27 order adopting these findings and recommendations and be warned that failure to do so will result 28 in the dismissal of this action. 1 I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. 2 | § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 3 | Eastern District of California. The parties may, within 14 days of the service of the findings and 4 | recommendations, file written objections to the findings and recommendations with the court. 5 | Such objections should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 6 | Recommendations.” The district judge will review the findings and recommendations under 28 7 | US.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ( 1 Ow — Dated: _ March 7, 2023 q———_ 11 JEREMY D. PETERSON Db UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28