1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTONIO EL, et al., Case No. 19-cv-06654-JCS

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 9 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE 10 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., DENIED 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 2

12 Plaintiffs1 Antonio El (self-styled as a “Consulate General), Marie Mairiam Bijou Bayo El 13 (self-styled as an “Ambassador”), Ali Bey, and Amirah White El filed this action against dozens 14 of defendants, including the U.S. Department of State, the State of California, the Los Angeles 15 County Superior Court, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the Los Angeles County 16 Probation Department, and several individuals, some of whom are public officials. 17 Plaintiffs filed a single “short form” application to proceed in forma pauperis signed by 18 Antonio El. See dkt. 2. The application indicates that Antonio El is employed “Federal Employer 19 - 06143” but receives “$0.00” in both gross and take-home pay based on a pay period of “N/A,” 20 that he has not received income from any other sources over the past twelve months, and that he 21 has zero dollars in cash or in a bank account. Antonio El’s response to all other questions on the 22 form is “N/A.” This form is somewhat self-contradictory in that it indicates Antonio El is 23 employed but receives no pay, and also appears to be inconsistent with even the minimal costs for 24 printing and postage that Plaintiffs presumably spent to file this action. The form is not sufficient 25

26 1 A document captioned “Emergency Diplomatic Relations” states that Antonio El is “expressly not a ‘Plaintiff.’” Antonio El filed this action seeking relief from the Court. He is therefore a 27 plaintiff, whether he wishes to be called one or not. The Court also notes that Antonio El lists 1 on its own to show that Antonio El is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, much less that the 2 other Plaintiffs are. As far as this Court is aware, every district court in the Ninth Circuit to 3 || consider the issue has held that all plaintiffs in a case must show that they are indigent before the 4 filing fee will be waived. E.g., Martinez v. Lutz, No. 1:18-cv-00999-DAD-SKO,

|| 3924266, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2018); Goode v. California, No. 17cv736-WQH-KSC, 2017

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2017); Wolde-Giorgis v. Dillard, No. CV 06-0289-PHX- 7 || MHM,

, at *6 (D. Ariz. Sept. 29, 2006). 8 Plaintiffs are therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why their application to proceed in 9 forma pauperis should not be denied, by filing a response no later than November 12, 2019. 10 || Plaintiffs should file one copy of the attached form for each plaintiff, for a total of four forms. 11 Plaintiffs must answer each question on the form as instructed. If Plaintiffs in fact have no assets 12 || or income whatsoever, they should also file a brief statement explaining how they meet basic 5 13 needs. 14 If Plaintiffs do not file a response by November 12, 2019, the Court will deny their 3 15 application. If the application is denied, the Court will provide Plaintiffs an opportunity to pay the a 16 || filing fee, and if they fail to do so, the undersigned magistrate judge will recommend that the case 3 17 || be dismissed. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: October 21, 2019 20 6 ZZ CZ J PH C. SPERO 21 ief Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28