(PC) Kidwell v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JASON SCOTT HARPER, 1:22-cv-00253-JLT-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING IFP APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 11 v. (ECF No. 7) 12 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND ORDER TO SUBMIT APPLICATION 13 REHABILITATIONS, et al., TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS OR PAY FILING FEE WITHIN 30 DAYS 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff Jason Scott Harper is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. 17 (ECF No. 1). Because Plaintiff had not paid the $402.00 filing fee nor submitted an application to 18 proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court entered an order on March 7, 2022, directing Plaintiff to complete an IFP application or pay the filing fee within 19 forty-five days. (ECF No. 3). 20 On March 28, 2022, Plaintiff submitted an IFP application. (ECF No. 7). However, rather 21 than signing on the provided space for applicants on the form, Plaintiff signed the section of the 22 form that is to be completed by the CDCR officer at Plaintiff’s prison, California Substance 23 Abuse Treatment Facility, and that sets forth Plaintiff’s available account balance and average 24 monthly balance over the last six months. Accordingly, the Court will deny the IFP application 25 without prejudice. 26 As the form states, Plaintiff must sign in the space provided for applicants “for the court to 27 consider [his] application.” This section of the form serves the purposes of documenting 28 1 Plaintiff’s attestation to filling out the form under penalty of perjury and authorizing Plaintiff’s 2 prison to provide a certified copy of his trust account statement and to collect money from that 3 trust account to provide to the Clerk of Court for payments in accordance with § 1915(b)(2). 4 Relatedly, the Court notes that Plaintiff has signed his name with “Auth Rep.” behind it and with the notation, “without prejudice/without recourse UCC 1-308.” (ECF No. 7, p. 2) 5 (capitalization omitted). The intended meaning of this is unclear. However, similar notation has 6 been used by persons who consider themselves to be “sovereign citizens.” See United States v. 7 Delatorre, No. 03 CR 90, 2008 WL 312647, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2008) (noting sovereign 8 citizen’s use of the term “authorized representative of the corporate fiction-entity/debtor 9 identified, as Fernando Delatorre” to refer to himself); Joe Elton Mosley, LLC v. Walmart, No. 10 3:20-CV-00184-MMD-WGC, 2020 WL 1846553, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 26, 2020), report and 11 recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 1821307 (D. Nev. Apr. 10, 2020) (noting that a plaintiff’s 12 IFP application with UCC 1-308 inserted above plaintiff’s name indicated “an adherence to the 13 ‘sovereign citizen’ anti-government movement”). 14 Generally, sovereign citizens disclaim any authority by government authorities over them 15 based on the person’s own purported sovereignty. See Vazquez v. California Highway Patro, No. 16 2:15-CV-756-JAM-EFB (PS), 2016 WL 232332, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2016) (explaining 17 “sovereign citizen” ideology). To the extent that Plaintiff has filled out the IFP application in an 18 attempt to assert any sovereign citizen ideology, he is advised that courts have uniformly rejected 19 such arguments as completely meritless. Mackey v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 1:15-CV-1934-LJO- 20 BAM, 2016 WL 3254037, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2016) (noting that “[c]ourts across the 21 country” have rejected sovereign citizen arguments “as frivolous, irrational, or unintelligible”). 22 Moreover, “advancement of such utterly meritless arguments is now the basis for serious 23 sanctions imposed on civil litigants who raise them.” United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986). 24 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 25 1. Plaintiff’s IFP application (ECF No. 7) is denied without prejudice; 26 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide Plaintiff with an Application to Proceed 27 In Forma Pauperis by a Prisoner; and 28 1 3. Within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall submit the 2 attached application to proceed in forma pauperis, completed and signed on the space 3 provide for IFP applicants, or shall, in the alternative, pay the $402.00 filing fee for 4 this action. 5 4. Plaintiff is advised to sign only his name and provide the date on the relevant section 6 of the form. 7 5. No requests for extension will be granted without a showing of good cause. Failure to 8 comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. ? | IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 1, | Dated: _Mareh 29, 2022 [see ey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28