(PC) George v. Lopez ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LOUIS GEORGE, Jr., Case No. 2:23-cv-00844-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 A. LOPEZ, 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. 6. 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 $2,847—more than enough to cover the $402 filing fee. ECF 20 No. 9. But before recommending that plaintiff’s application be denied, I will give him an 21 opportunity to respond to this order and to explain why he cannot both pay the filing fee and still 22 afford his necessities. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (“An 23 affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay 24 the court 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 26, 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