Rodriguez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISMAEL RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: 21cv236 DMS (LL) Plaintiff,

ORDER(1) DENYING MOTION TO v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND (2) DISMISSING CASE

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; JOHN

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

RICHARD SHREWSBERRY;

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND

HAMPTON, LLP; JOHN C. DINEEN,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has submitted a Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The Court is unable to determine whether Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of this case because he failed to answer all of the questions on the form motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED and the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Pursuant to this Order, Plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to pay the $402 filing fee required to maintain this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, or to submit additional documentation regarding his economic status."

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2021 em Dh a Yn.

Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court

54 ' The Court notes that if Plaintiff chooses to either pay the filing fee or submit additional information in support of his motion to proceed IFP, that he should also be prepared to explain why this case should not be dismissed as frivolous, consistent with Lankford v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, No. 3:20-mc-00001, 2020 WL 6828223 (S.D. Ohio Nov.

20, 2020), and Melicia v. O’Shea, No. 3:20-mc-62-MOC-DSC, 2020 WL 2512984 (W.D.N.C. May 15, 2020). See Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir. 1981) (stating trial court “may act on its own initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint and dismiss it for failure to state a claim” after giving plaintiff notice and an opportunity to be heard).