1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 1:25-cv-01246-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. (Doc. 2) 14 N. VERA, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Lance Williams is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint and an application to 19 proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on September 22, 2025. 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 The address reflected on Plaintiff’s complaint and his IFP application, a post office box in 22 Tarzana, California, reveals that Plaintiff was not in custody at the time he commenced this 23 action.1 (See Docs. 1 at 1 & 2 at 1.) Further, Plaintiff does not indicate he is incarcerated in his 24 IFP application. (Doc. 2 at 1). Therefore, neither the filing fee provisions of

(b), 25 nor § 1915(c)’s “three strikes” bar apply to this case. See Andrews v. King,

, 1122 26 (9th Cir. 2005). And while Plaintiff may not be subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s 27 (PLRA) requirement that a prisoner-plaintiff exhaust administrative remedies and provide copies

1 1 of prisoner trust fund account statements in support of any IFP application, he must otherwise 2 comply with the requirement under

and Local Rule 121 to submit a financial 3 affidavit in support of his request to proceed IFP.

. 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 To proceed in court without prepayment of the filing fee, a plaintiff must submit an 6 affidavit demonstrating that he “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.”

1915(a)(1). The right to proceed without prepayment of fees in a civil case is a privilege and not a 8 right. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council,

, 198 9 n.2 (1993); see Franklin v. Murphy,

(9th Cir. 1984) (“permission to proceed 10 in forma pauperis is itself a matter of privilege and not right; denial of in forma pauperis does not 11 violate the applicant’s right to due process”), abrogated on other grounds, Neitzke v. Williams, 12

(1989). A plaintiff need not be destitute to proceed IFP and the application is 13 sufficient if it states that due to poverty, the applicant is unable to pay the costs and still be able to 14 provide himself and his dependents with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de 15 Nemours & Co.,

(1948). Whether to grant or deny an application to proceed 16 without prepayment of fees is an exercise of the district court’s discretion. See Escobedo v. 17 Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015). 18 Here, Plaintiff states he is unemployed and receives $220 in monthly welfare benefits and 19 $250 in food stamps. (Doc. 2 at 1.) He also states he has $2 in cash, checking or savings accounts, 20 and does not own any automobile, real estate, stock, bond, security, trust, jewelry, artwork, or any 21 other financial instrument or thing of value. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states he is “homeless” and 22 sometimes stays in hotel rooms. (Id.) His regular expenses include “student loans $1 to $75 a 23 month, transportation public/uber $100 a month.” (Id.) Plaintiff further states he provides 24 financial support to his grand niece whenever possible. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff states his total 25 student loan obligation is $53,000. (Id.) 26 The Court finds Plaintiff has made the showing required by section 1915, and the request 27 to proceed IFP will be granted. Plaintiff is advised that the Court is required to screen complaints 1 v. Smith,

, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 2 complaints, not just those filed by prisoners”). Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due 3 course. 4 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 5 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Plaintiff’s application to 6 proceed IFP (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

9 Dated: September 24, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27