(PC) Williams v. Jalijali ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE E. WILLIAMS, No. 2:22-cv-00605-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEHOSHUA JALIJALI, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 25, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, ECF No. 38, 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff objects in part 23 to the findings and recommendations and asks the court not to revoke his in forma pauperis 24 status. ECF No. 39. In response, defendants ask the court to disregard plaintiff’s objection as late 25 and unsupported by argument or legal authority. ECF No. 40. The court considers both 26 plaintiff’s objections and defendants’ substantive response. 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 28 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge 1 | that dismissal would be an inappropriately harsh punishment for plaintiffs failure to disclose 2 || several payments and accounts. See F&Rs at 5. As the Magistrate Judge correctly notes, plaintiff 3 || would not have disqualified himself from proceeding in forma pauperis by disclosing his 4 | financial status completely and accurately. Cf, e.g., Adkins v. EI. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 5 || 335 US. 331, 339 (1948) (“We cannot agree with the court below that one must be absolutely 6 || destitute to enjoy the benefit of the statute.”). But plaintiff very likely knew his application was 7 || inaccurate. “Although the [Magistrate Judge] might have granted the plaintiff's in forma 8 || pauperis petition even if he’d disclosed his separate trust account, hiding assets is not a 9 || permissible alternative to seeking the judge’s assistance.” Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 10 | 443 (7th Cir. 2016). Litigants must “tell the truth, then argue to the judge why seemingly adverse 11 || facts (such as the trust fund in this case) are not dispositive. A litigant can’t say, ‘I know how the 12 || judge should rule, so I’m entitled to conceal material information from him.’” /d. Revoking 13 | plaintiffs in forma pauperis status is an appropriate sanction for his knowing omissions. 14 The court otherwise agrees with and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 15 || recommendations. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 25, 2023, are adopted in full; 17 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) is granted in part, ECF 18 | No. 34, and plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is revoked; 19 3. Plaintiff granted thirty days from this order to submit the filing fee in full; and 20 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 21 || proceedings. 22 || DATED: September 12, 2023. 24 35 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28