Full text
(PC) Rannels v. Smith
[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
[10] 11 DANIEL W. RANNELS, Case No.: 1:21-cv-00049-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION
13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
SHOULD NOT BE DENIED
14 SMITH, et al., 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants.
[16] 17 Plaintiff Daniel W. Rannels moves the Court to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. 18 (Doc. 2.) According to the certified account statement submitted by the California Department of 19 Corrections and Rehabilitation, Plaintiff has received, on average, monthly deposits of 20 approximately $400 to his inmate trust account over the past six months, and he currently has 21 $1,337.32 in his account. (Doc. 6) This is more than enough to pay the $402 filing fee in this 22 action. Therefore, Plaintiff must show why he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. 23 Proceeding “in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114 , 24 116 (9th Cir. 1965). While a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis, 25 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948), “‘the same even-handed 26 care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public 27 expense, either frivolous claims or the remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.’” Doe v. Educ. Enrichment Sys., No. 15-cv-2628-MMA1 MDD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173063 , *2 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586
2 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984)). Hence, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 3 determines that the [plaintiff’s] allegation of poverty is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(A). 4 Plaintiff appears to have adequate funds to pay the filing fee for this action in full. 5 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, within 21 days of the date of service of this order, to 6 show cause in writing why his motion to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied. Failure 7 to respond to this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to 8 obey a court order.
[9] IT IS SO ORDERED.
[10] Sheila K. Oberto 11 Dated: January 14, 2021 /s/ .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE