(PC) Miller v. Madruga ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSEMARY HEATHER MILLER, 1:23-cv-00616-GSA-PC 12 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO 13 Plaintiff, RANDOMLY ASSIGN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS 14 vs. CASE 15 MADRUGA, et al., AND 16 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 17 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED 18 (ECF No. 2.) 19 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE BY MAY 26, 2023 20 21 I. FINDINGS 22 Rosemary Heather Miller (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil 23 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Complaint 24 commencing this action, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 25 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) 26 In the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff reports that she has cash. (ECF No. 27 2 at 2 ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s prison trust account statement shows that on April 6, 2023, she had a 28 1 balance of $6,030.40 in the account. (ECF No. 6 at 2.) Under these facts the court finds that 2 Plaintiff can afford the $402.00 filing fee for this action. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed 3 in forma pauperis should be denied, and Plaintiff should be required to pay the statutory filing 4 fee of $402.00 for this action in full. 5 II. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION 6 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on April 21, 2023, be 8 DENIED; and 9 2. Plaintiff be required to pay the $402.00 filing fee for this action in full. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 11 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). On or before 12 May 26, 2023, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be 13 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 14 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 15 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: May 6, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28