(PC) Parks v. Gomez ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SAQUAN E. PARKS, Case No. 1:24-cv-01088-EPG 10 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 11 CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE v. DISMISSED FOR FILING A FALSE IFP 12 AFFIDAVIT B. GOMEZ, 13 (ECF No. 2) Defendant. 14 RESPONSE DUE BY NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 21, 2024 15 16 Plaintiff Saquan E. Parks is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action. (ECF 17 No. 1). Plaintiff’s complaint is dated August 20, 2024 (id. at 8) and was filed on September 4, 18 2024. (See docket). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), 19 also dated August 20, 2024. (ECF No. 2). For the reasons given below, the Court will require 20 Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for filing a false IFP affidavit. 21 The Court normally requires a $405 filing fee for a civil action. However, a federal 22 statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, permits a plaintiff to commence a lawsuit without prepaying a filing 23 fee. This statute requires “an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” § 1915(a)(1). In 24 addition to filing an affidavit, a prisoner “shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account 25 statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately 26 preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of 27 each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.” § 1915(a)(2). Importantly, under 28 1 § 1915(e)(2)(A), a “court shall dismiss” a case if it determines that “the allegation of poverty is 2 untrue.” But “[t]o dismiss [a] complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), a showing of bad faith is 3 required, not merely inaccuracy.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 n. 8 (9th Cir. 4 2015). In reviewing an IFP application, a court is “entitled to consider [a plaintiff’s] own economic choices about how to spend his money.” Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th 5 Cir. 1995). For example, the Court can consider that a plaintiff thought it more worthwhile to 6 spend his money on commissary items than to pay the filing fee for his civil rights suit. Id. Other 7 courts have found bad faith where “prisoner-plaintiffs have diverted funds in the period leading 8 up to their IFP application.” Witkin v. Lee, No. 2:17-cv-0232-JAM-EFB P, 2020 WL 2512383, at 9 *4 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2020) (collecting cases). 10 With these standards in mind, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed the standard IFP 11 application, which includes a declaration signed by Plaintiff answering questions about his 12 finances under penalty of perjury. (ECF No. 2). Importantly, Plaintiff stated that (1) he received 13 no money from any source over the last twelve months; (2) he had no cash or any other assets; 14 and (3) he was not currently employed, including prison employment. (Id.) 15 However, according to Plaintiff’s trust account statement, the information in his IFP 16 application is false. Among other things, the statement, shows that: 17 (1) Plaintiff received numerous deposits in his account in the six-month period 18 preceding the filing of the complaint, totaling more than $1,350; 19 (2) some of the deposits suggest Plaintiff is employed at the prison; and 20 (3) Plaintiff had account balance of $300.37 on August 1, 2024, and he spent $294.50 21 of it on August 8, 2024, shortly before filing his complaint. 22 From these facts, it appears that Plaintiff intentionally made false statements on his IFP 23 affidavit by claiming that he received no money in the last twelve months and had no funds, and that he may have intentionally diverted funds by making a large commissary purchase shortly 24 before filing his complaint. 25 \\\ 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 1 Based on these circumstances, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 2 1. By no later than October 21, 2024, Plaintiff shall file a response to this order, 3 showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for filing a false IFP 4 affidavit. 5 2. If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this order, he is advised that this case may be 6 dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 o | Dated: _ September 20, 2024 [spe ey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28