Message
×
loading..

Ireland v. Madera County Police Department ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 1:23-cv-00725-JLT-BAM LAVONDA LOUISE IRELAND et al., 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO 13 FILE COMPLETED APPLICATION TO v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS OR 14 PAY FILING FEE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 15 MADERA COUNTY POLICE 16 DEPARTMENT, et al. 17 Defendants. 18 Plaintiffs Lavonda Louise Ireland and Michael Edward Muehlemann, proceeding pro se, 19 filed this civil action on May 11, 2023, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 20 (Doc. 1, 2.) However, as there are two main deficiencies with the IFP application, the Court will 21 direct each Plaintiff to file a new and separate application. 22 First, while the application appears to be signed by both Plaintiffs, it is unclear whether it 23 contains the financial information for only Plaintiff Muehlemann, only Plaintiff Ireland, or both 24 Plaintiffs. (Doc. 2.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a pro se plaintiff may proceed without 25 prepayment of fees by submitting “an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such 26 [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” See 27 Flores v. California Corr. Women’s Facility, No. 1:19-cv-1509-NONE-JLT, 2020 WL 8821643, 28 at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2020) (noting that § 1915(a)(1) applies to non-prisoner plaintiffs). 1 Without knowing each Plaintiff’s financial circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that they 2 are unable to pay the $402.00 filing fee for this case. Accordingly, the Court will require each 3 Plaintiff to file a separate application containing only the individual Plaintiff’s financial 4 information. See Remmert v. Newsome, No. 1:23-cv-00050-ADA-HBK, 2023 WL 1806277, at 5 *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2023) (requiring each Plaintiff to submit their own separate application if 6 they wished to proceed IFP). 7 Second, the IFP application, which only contains Plaintiff Muehlemann’s financial 8 information, appears to conflict with an IFP application that Plaintiff Muehlemann filed the same 9 day in a separate case, 1:23-cv-00727-ADA-EPG. (Compare Doc. 2 of the instant case, with 10 Doc. 2 of Docket No. 1:23-cv-00727-ADA-EPG). In both applications, Plaintiff Muehlemann 11 represents that he receives about $1,252 per month. However, in Doc. 2 of 1:23-cv-00727-ADA- 12 EPG, Plaintiff Muehlemann listed Plaintiff Ireland as his dependent and claims that he provides 13 the entirety of his approximately $1,252 per month for her support while in this case he wrote 14 “does not apply” when asked to name any dependents. (Doc. 2 at 2.) Because “it is proper and 15 indeed essential for the supporting affidavits to state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some 16 particularity, definiteness and certainty,” the Court will direct Plaintiff Muehlemann to file a new 17 application ensuring that it contains accurate, truthful, and complete information about his 18 financial circumstances. United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting 19 Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). If Plaintiff Muehlemann 20 continues to claim Plaintiff Ireland as a dependent, he must specify his relationship with her and 21 explain why he claimed no dependent on his other IFP application. 22 In addition, the Court notes a potential issue with Plaintiffs’ complaint. Notably, the 23 Complaint only includes the signature of Plaintiff Muehlemann. (Doc. 1 at 6.) “[C]ourts have 24 routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf 25 of others in a representative capacity.” Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 26 2008). Plaintiff Muehlemann therefore may not pursue claims on behalf of Plaintiff Ireland, and 27 if Plaintiff Ireland intends to be a Plaintiff in this action, she must also sign the complaint. 28 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail each Plaintiff a form IFP application. (Form 2 AO 240); 3 2. Each Plaintiff shall fill out a separate IFP application, accurately, truthfully, and 4 completely answering all questions, and shall file the form by no later than June 12, 2023. 5 Alternatively, Plaintiffs may pay the $402.00 filing fee to proceed with this case; 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiffs a form complaint for a civil case. 7 (Form Pro Se 1); 8 4. By no later than June 12, 2023, Plaintiffs may choose to file an amended 9 complaint, in compliance with Rule 15, clarifying the Plaintiffs and factual allegations in 10 this case. If they choose to do so, they are advised that the amended complaint will 11 supersede (i.e., replace) their current complaint in its entirety. Accordingly, the amended 12 complaint must be complete in itself without reference to their current complaint. Local 13 Rule 220. If an amended complaint is not received by June 12, 2023, and Plaintiffs are 14 granted permission to proceed IFP, the Court will screen the current complaint in due 15 course; 16 5. No extension of time will be granted without a showing of good cause; and 17 6. The failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action, 18 without prejudice. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: May 12, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:23-cv-00725

Filed Date: 5/15/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2024