(PS) Flynn v. County of Tuolumne

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOHN FLYNN, Case No. 2:24-cv-2265-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER COUNTY OF TUOLUMNE et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro, brings this § 1983 action and concurrently has applied to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. I have reviewed his in forma pauperis applications, and it appears that he has sufficient funds to cover the filing fee. His applications indicates that he has a take-home pay of $1,740 monthly, receives $1,481 monthly in social security disability benefits, receives monthly $3,108 from his pension monthly, and has $9,300 in his checking account— which seems to be more than enough to pay the $405 filing fee. Id. But before recommending that plaintiff’s application be denied, I will give him an opportunity to respond to this order and to explain why he cannot both pay the filing fee and still afford his necessities. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (“An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.”).

28 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that within twenty-one days of this order’s entry plaintiff | may respond to this order and explain why he should still be allowed to proceed in forma | pauperis. If he fails to do so, I will recommend that plaintiffs application be denied, and he be | directed to pay the full filing fee.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ November 13, 2024 Q_——.

7 JEREMY D. PETERSON 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE