Full text
(PC) Casey v. Haddad
[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
[10] 11 DOMINIQUE ZAFIR CASEY, Case No.: 1:21-cv-00855-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION
13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
SHOULD NOT BE DENIED
14 HADDAD, et al., 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants.
[16] 17 Plaintiff Dominique Zafir Casey moves the Court to proceed in forma pauperis in this 18 action. (Doc. 2.) According to the certified account statement submitted by the California 19 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Plaintiff had more than $1,000 in his inmate trust 20 account as of March 4, 2021, and he currently has $469.09 in his account. (Doc. 6) This is enough 21 to pay the $402 filing fee in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff must show why he is entitled to 22 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: June 1, 2021 /s/ .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE