(PC) Porter v. Rivas

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LARRY JAMES PORTER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00105-BAK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION 13 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED O. RIVAS, et al., 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Larry James Porter (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. On January 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2.) According to the certified trust account statement submitted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Plaintiff had $1,017 in his inmate trust account as of December 29, 2021, less than one month before his filed his motion. (Doc. 7.) This was more than enough to pay the $402 filing fee for this action. Plaintiff then withdrew $1,000 from his account, (see id.); he must therefore show why he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.

25 Proceeding “in forma pauperis is a privilege not a right.” Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965). While a party need not be completely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis, Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948), “‘the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are not squandered to underwrite, at public 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-MMA- MDD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173063, *2 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (citation omitted). Hence, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the [plaintiff’s] allegation of poverty is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A).

6 According to his inmate trust account, Plaintiff had adequate funds to pay the filing fee for this action. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, within 21 days of the date of service of this order, to show cause in writing why his motion to proceed IFP should not be denied. Failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated: January 27, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE