(PC) Robinson v. Smith ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERMAINE DANIEL ROBINSON, No. 2:22-cv-1595-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 L. SMITH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, an individual in the custody of a state hospital, is proceeding pro se with a civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed an in forma pauperis application in which 19 he states that he has $2,500.00 in cash. ECF No. 2 at 2. 20 The court may authorize the commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees or 21 security therefor” by an individual who submits an application evidencing an inability to pay such 22 fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff has made an inadequate showing of 23 indigency in the application before the court. It will therefore be recommended that the 24 application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that plaintiff be required to pay the 25 $402.00 before this action can proceed. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 27 assign a United States District Judge to this action. 28 ///// 1 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, be DENIED; and 3 2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $402 filing fee within fourteen days from the date of any 4 || order adopting these findings and recommendations and be warned that failure to do so will result 5 || in the dismissal of this action. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 8 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 11 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 12 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 || Dated: November 2, 2022. 14 > 15 / EDMUND F. BRENNAN 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28