(PC) Hill v. McGeffen ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CYMEYON HILL, Case No. 2:22-cv-01524-DAD-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF SHOW CAUSE WHY HIS APPLICATION TO PROCEED 12 v. IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED AND HE BE DIRECTED TO PAY 13 MCGEFFEN, et al., THE ENTIRE FILING FEE 14 Defendants. ECF No. 2 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this section 1983 action and, concurrently, has applied to 22 proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. I have reviewed his prison trust fund account statement 23 and it appears that he has sufficient funds to cover the filing fee. His account statement indicates 24 that he has an available balance of $4,656, an amount that is sufficient to cover the $402 filing 25 fee. But before recommending that plaintiff’s application be denied, I will give him an 26 opportunity to respond to this order and to explain why he cannot pay the filing fee and still 27 afford his necessities. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (“An 28 affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay 1 | the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.”). 2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 3 Within twenty-one days of this order’s entry, plaintiff may respond to this order and 4 | explain why he should still be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. If he fails to do so, I will 5 || recommend that plaintiffs application be denied and that he be directed to pay the full filing fee. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ November 3, 2022 Q_——. 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28