Muehlemann v. Santillan ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MICHAEL EDWARD MUEHLEMANN, Case No. 1:23-cv-00727-ADA-EPG et al., 11 ORDER (1) REQUIRING EACH PLAINTIFF Plaintiff, TO SUBMIT AN IFP APPLICATION AND (2) 12 DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO v. SEND PLAINTIFFS A CIVIL COMPLAINT 13 FORM FERNANDO SANTILLAN, et al., 14 (ECF No. 2) Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiffs Michael Edward Muehlemann and Lavonda Louise Ireland, proceeding pro se, 17 filed this lawsuit on May 11, 2023. (ECF No. 1). On the same day, Plaintiffs filed an application 18 to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (ECF No. 2). Because there are two main deficiencies with 19 the IFP application, the Court will direct each Plaintiff to file a new and separate application. 20 First, while the application appears to be signed by both Plaintiffs, it only contains 21 Plaintiff Muehlemann’s financial information. (ECF No. 2). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a pro 22 se plaintiff may proceed without prepayment of fees by submitting “an affidavit that includes a 23 statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give 24 security therefor.” See Flores v. California Corr. Women’s Facility, No. 1:19-cv-1509-NONE- 25 JLT, 2020 WL 8821643, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2020) (noting that § 1915(a)(1) applies to non- 26 prisoner plaintiffs). Without knowing each Plaintiff’s financial circumstances, the Court cannot 27 conclude that they are unable to pay the $402 filing fee for this case. Accordingly, the Court will 28 1 require each Plaintiff to file a separate application containing only the individual Plaintiff’s 2 financial information. See Remmert v. Newsome, No. 1:23-CV-00050-ADA-HBK, 2023 WL 3 1806277, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2023) (requiring each Plaintiff to submit their own separate 4 application if they wished to proceed IFP). 5 Second, the IFP application, which only contains Plaintiff Muehlemann’s financial 6 information, appears to conflict with an IFP application that Plaintiff Muehlemann filed the same 7 day in a separate case, 1:23-cv-00725-JLT-BAM. (Compare ECF No. 2 of the instant case, with 8 ECF No. 2 of 1:23-cv-00725-JLT-BAM). In both applications, Plaintiff Muehlemann represents 9 that he receives about $1,252 per month. However, in 1:23-cv-00725-JLT-BAM, Plaintiff 10 Muehlemann wrote “does not apply” when asked to name any dependents, while in this case, he 11 listed Plaintiff Ireland as his dependent and claims that he provides the entirety of his 12 approximately $1,252 per month for her support. (Capitalization altered). Because “it is proper 13 and indeed essential for the supporting affidavits to state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with 14 some particularity, definiteness and certainty,” the Court will direct Plaintiff Muehlemann to file 15 a new application ensuring that it contains accurate, truthful, and complete information about his 16 financial circumstances. United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting 17 Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). If Plaintiff Muehlemann continues 18 to claim Plaintiff Ireland as a dependent, he must specify his relationship with her and explain 19 why he claimed no dependent on his other IFP application. 20 Before concluding, the Court notes a potential issue with Plaintiffs’ complaint. Notably, 21 while Plaintiffs sue two Defendants—Fernando Santillan (the City Manager of Selma, California) 22 and Adventist Health Hanford Hospital—they appear to only include allegations as to Defendant 23 Santillan, indicating that this Defendant “failed to protect” Selma’s citizens. (See ECF No. 1, p. 5- 24 6) (capitalization altered). Moreover, in other portions of the complaint asking about the 25 Defendants in the case, they only list Defendant Santillan. (Id. at 1, 4-5; ECF No. 1-1, p. 1). This 26 is particularly notable because Plaintiffs filed a separate complaint the same day in 1:23-cv- 27 00728-JLT-EPG against Adventist Health Hanford Hospital, alleging that Plaintiff Ireland was 28 assaulted by a nurse at the Hospital. 1 This leads the Court to believe that, in drafting the two lawsuits, Plaintiffs may have 2 mistakenly listed Defendant Adventist Health Hanford Hospital as a defendant in the instant case, 3 when they only intended to bring allegations against this Defendant in their separate lawsuit, 4 1:23-cv-00728-JLT-EPG. However, if Plaintiffs do mean to sue both Fernando Santillan and 5 Adventist Health Hanford Hospital in this case, they are advised that the claims must be related or 6 the Court may end up dismissing unrelated claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) and 21. The Court 7 advises Plaintiffs that they may file an amended complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), clarifying 8 the intended Defendants in this case as well as the factual allegations against each Defendant. 9 For the reasons given above, IT IS ORDERED that: 10 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail each Plaintiff a form IFP application. (Form 11 AO 240). 12 2. Each Plaintiff shall fill out a separate IFP application, accurately, truthfully, and 13 completely answering all questions, and shall file the form by no later than June 12, 2023. 14 Alternatively, Plaintiffs may pay the $402 filing fee to proceed with this case. 15 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiffs a form complaint for a civil case. 16 (Form Pro Se 1). 17 4. By no later than June 12, 2023, Plaintiffs may choose to file an amended 18 complaint, in compliance with Rule 15, clarifying the Defendants and factual allegations in this 19 case. If they choose to do so, they are advised that the amended complaint will supersede (i.e., 20 replace) their current complaint in its entirety. Accordingly, the amended complaint must be 21 complete in itself without reference to their current complaint. Local Rule 220. If an amended 22 complaint is not received by June 12, 2023, and Plaintiffs are granted permission to proceed IFP, 23 the Court will screen the current complaint in due course. 24 \\\ 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 \\\ 1 5. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4} Dated: _May 12, 2023 hey 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28