(PC) Springfield v. CDCR ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CIRON B. SPRINGFIELD, Case No. 2:23-cv-00594-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 CDCR, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this § 1983 action and concurrently has applied to 17 proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4. I have reviewed his prison trust fund account statement, 18 and it appears that he has sufficient funds to cover the filing fee. His account statement indicates 19 that he has an available balance of $3,096—more than enough to cover the $402 filing fee. But 20 before recommending that plaintiff’s application be denied, I will give him an opportunity to 21 respond to this order and to explain why he cannot both pay the filing fee and still afford his 22 necessities. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (“An affidavit in 23 support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court 24 costs and still afford the necessities of life.”). 25 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that within twenty-one days of this order’s entry plaintiff 26 may respond to this order and explain why he should still be allowed to proceed in forma 27 pauperis. If he fails to do so, I will recommend that plaintiff’s application be denied, and he be 28 directed to pay the full filing fee. 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ May 8, 2023 q-—— 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28