(PS)Pyle v. Glenn County Sheriff's Department

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ERIK BURDETT PYLE, Case No. 2:24-cv-02940-TLN-CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE GLEN COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT., et al., 15 (ECF No. 2) Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Erik Burdett Pyle is proceeding in this action pro se.1 Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

19 (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s IFP application will be denied without prejudice because Plaintiff’s IFP affidavit is inconsistent and insufficient.

21 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 22 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in any district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party's failure to pay the filing fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c).

1 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). To qualify to proceed in forma pauperis, the litigant must submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets they possess.

3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The affidavit must also state that the person is unable to pay the fees or give security. Id. The affidavit must provide “sufficient details concerning [the applicant’s] income, assets, and expenditures[.]” Williams v. Cnty. of Ventura, 443 F.

6 App’x 232, 233 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (an affidavit claiming poverty in support of a motion made under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 must state the relevant facts “with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty”).

10 II. DISCUSSION 11 Plaintiff’s IFP application indicates he receives $0 in pay or wages and has had no other income during the past 12 months. ECF No. 2 at 1 ¶ 3. Plaintiff further avers he has $0 in his checking or savings account. Id. at 2 ¶ 4. Plaintiff answers “none” when answering whether: Plaintiff owns “any automobile, real estate, stock, bond, security, trust, jewelry, art work, or other financial instrument or thing of value;” Plaintiff has “[a]ny housing, transportation, utilities, or loan payments or other regular monthly expenses;” Plaintiff provides support to “persons who are dependent on [him] for support” and how much Plaintiff contributes to their support; and Plaintiff has “[a]ny debts or financial obligations.” Id. at 2 ¶¶ 5-8. However, in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff indicates he owns a “farm” and/or “ranch.” Compl. at 11-12 (ECF No. 1). In light of Plaintiff’s statement regarding his real property ownership in the Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s affidavit is inconsistent and insufficient to support a finding that he can proceed in forma pauperis at this time. See Strojnik v. Panera Bread Company, 2022 WL 2287274, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2022) (inconsistencies between plaintiff’s IFP application and the complaint), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 2609456 (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2022). Because Plaintiff may have erred in filling out his affidavit, the Court will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended IFP application. Accordingly, the Court will deny without prejudice Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP due to his failure to meet his | burden based on his deficient affidavit. See Williams, 443 F. App’x at 233.

2 | Ill. CONCLUSION 3 For the reasons explained above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED 5 without prejudice; and 6 2. Plaintiff may file his renewed IFP application within thirty (30) days from the 7 date of this order. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the 8 undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to 9 prosecute.

4 Dated: April 25, 2025 C (i s 42 GHI 500 KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE || 4, pylez940.24