(PS) Melton v. Stockton Police Dept. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY RUSSELL MELTON, No. 2:23–cv–1457–KJM–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PLAINTIFF’S IFP REQUEST 13 v. (ECF No. 2) 14 STOCKTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel in this action, requests leave to proceed in 19 forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 (ECF No. 2.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing the commencement of 20 an action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person who is unable to pay such fees). 21 The affidavit in support of the motion indicates plaintiff has a monthly gross income of 22 approximately $8,000, i.e., $96,000 annually, has $512 in liquid assets, and has monthly expenses 23 of approximately $1,770. (See ECF No. 2.) According to the United States Department of 24 Health and Human Services, the current poverty guideline for a household of 1 (not residing in 25 Alaska or Hawaii) is $14,580.00. See https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines. As plaintiff’s 26 gross household income is over 600% of the 2023 poverty guideline, the court cannot find 27 1 Actions where a party proceeds without counsel are referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 1 | plaintiff unable to pay. To be sure, the court is sympathetic to the fact that plaintiff has several 2 || expenses to contend with. However, numerous litigants in this court have significant monthly 3 || expenditures, and may have to make difficult choices as to which expenses to incur, which 4 || expenses to reduce or eliminate, and how to apportion their income between such expenses and 5 || litigating an action in federal court. Such difficulties in themselves do not amount to indigency. 6 | Thus, the court recommends plaintiff's IFP motion be denied. See Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 7 || 548-49 (9th Cir. 1988) (absent consent of all parties, magistrate judge lacks authority to issue 8 | dispositive order denying in forma pauperis status). Presently, a filing fee of $400.00 is required 9 || to commence a civil action in this court. 10 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS: 11 1. Plaintiff's IFP request (ECF No. 2) be DENIED; 12 2. Plaintiff be ordered to pay the filing fee before commencement of this action and 13 issuance of a summons by the Clerk of the Court; and 14 3. Plaintiff be warned that failure to satisfy the full filing fee within 30 days of the 15 district judge’s order may result in dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of 16 Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 17 || These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to 18 || the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No objections period is required for 19 | IFP denials. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended (Sept. 9, 20 | 1998) (“[Plaintiff] was not entitled to file written objections to the magistrate judge's 21 || recommendation that [his] application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.”). 22 || Dated: July 27, 2023 Aectl Aharon 24 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 melt.1457 26 27 28