(PC) Arrellano-Lopez v. Gonzales ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JORGE N. ARRELLANO-LOPEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-00093-EPG (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE 11 v. DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BECAUSE HIS ALLEGATION OF POVERTY 12 IS UNTRUE AND HE KNOWINGLY J. GONZALES, et al., PROVIDED INACCURATE INFORMATION 13 Defendants. THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 14 15 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 16 1983. On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant 17 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, along with a Trust Account Statement. (ECF No. 2). According to 18 Plaintiff’s application, he is not employed, he has not received money from any sources in the last 19 twelve months, and he has no money or other assets. 20 However, according to the attached Trust Account Statement, between July 23, 2022, and 21 January 23, 2023, Plaintiff received over $4,500. Additionally, Plaintiff received $500 less than 22 three weeks before filing the case. Finally, it appears that Plaintiff previously attempted to file 23 this case in September of 2022 by mailing the complaint to the Court. (ECF No. 1-1, p. 2). At 24 that time, Plaintiff attempted to pay the filing fee by sending two money orders. (ECF No. 1, p. 25 10; ECF No. 1-1, pgs. 2-3). However, the money orders were returned because they totaled more 26 than the amount of the filing fee, and Plaintiff’s complaint was returned because Plaintiff did not 27 comply with the Court’s E-Filing procedures. (ECF No. 1-1, pgs. 2-3). 28 Thus, it appears that Plaintiff, who is a prisoner, has been dishonest in this application to 1 proceed in forma pauperis and that his allegation of poverty is untrue. 2 “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court 3 shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that … the allegation of poverty is 4 untrue.” 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(A). Additionally, “courts routinely dismiss with prejudice cases 5 upon finding that the plaintiff has intentionally withheld information that may have disqualified 6 plaintiff from obtaining IFP status or has otherwise manipulated his finances to make it appear 7 that a plaintiff is poorer than he actually is; i.e., where the facts show that the inaccuracy on the 8 IFP application resulted from the plaintiff’s bad faith.” Witkin v. Lee, 2020 WL 2512383, at *3 9 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 4350094 (E.D. Cal. 10 July 29, 2020), appeal dismissed, 2020 WL 8212954 (9th Cir. Dec. 9, 2020). See also Steshenko 11 v. Gayrard, 2015 WL 1503651, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2015) (“Where the applicant has 12 knowingly provided inaccurate information on his or her IFP application, the dismissal may be 13 with prejudice.”) (citing Thomas v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 288 F.3d 305, 306 (7th Cir. 14 2002); Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 612-13 (11th Cir. 1997); Romesburg v. Trickey, 908 15 F.2d 258, 260 (8th Cir. 1990); Thompson v. Carlson, 705 F.2d 868, 869 (6th Cir. 1983)), aff’d 16 sub nom. Steshenko v. Albee, 691 F. App’x 869 (9th Cir. 2017). 17 As it appears that Plaintiff’s allegation of poverty is untrue, and that Plaintiff knowingly 18 provided inaccurate information in his IFP application, the Court will order Plaintiff to show 19 cause as to why this case should not be dismissed. 20 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of service of this order to show cause as to 22 why this action should not be dismissed because his allegation of poverty is untrue 23 and he knowingly provided false information to the Court; and 24 \\\ 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 \\\ \\\ 28 1 2. If Plaintiff fails to file a response to this order, the Court will issue findings and 2 recommendations to a district judge, recommending dismissal of this action. If the 3 Court finds that Plaintiff knowingly provided inaccurate information, the Court 4 may recommend that the dismissal be with prejudice. 5 ‘ IT IS SO ORDERED. 7| Dated: _ January 25, 2023 [see ey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28