1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISMAEL RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: 21cv236 DMS (LL)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER(1) DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND (2) DISMISSING CASE 14 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; JOHN WITHOUT PREJUDICE RICHARD SHREWSBERRY; 15 SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND 16 HAMPTON, LLP; JOHN C. DINEEN, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has submitted a Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, 21 along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The Court is unable to determine 22 whether Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of this case because he failed to answer all of 23 the questions on the form motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is 24 DENIED and the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Pursuant to this Order, 25 Plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to pay the $402 filing fee required to maintain this action 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 ||pursuant to

, or to submit additional documentation regarding his 2 ||economic status." 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: May 27, 2021 em Dh 5 a Yn. Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge 6 United States District Court 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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 25 ||explain why this case should not be dismissed as frivolous, consistent with Lankford v. 5 Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, No. 3:20-mc-00001,

(S.D. Ohio Nov. 6 20, 2020), and Melicia v. O’Shea, No. 3:20-mc-62-MOC-DSC,

27 || (W.D.N.C. May 15, 2020). See Wong v. Bell,

(9th Cir. 1981) (stating 28 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).