1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMIAH ALLEN RUTH, No. 2:25–cv–02403–DC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 UBER, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant 18 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and

(b)(1). The Court now recommends that Plaintiff’s 19 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2) be DENIED and the action be 20 dismissed without prejudice. 21 Plaintiff filed his complaint and the motion for IFP on August 22, 2025. ECF Nos. 1 & 2. 22 On October 1, 2025, this Court issued an Order finding that the motion makes an insufficient 23 showing to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3 at 1. The Court noted that the motion for IFP 24 contained several omissions concerning income and expenses.

. 25 The Court directed Plaintiff to supplement the motion for IFP within 14 days, or 26 alternatively Plaintiff could pay the filing fee within 14 days. ECF No. 3 at 2. The Order further 27 provided that if Plaintiff “does not supplement the application or pay the filing fee within 14 days, 28 the Court will issue findings and recommendations that the motion for IFP be denied and the 1 || action dismissed.” Jd. Now more than 21 days have passed, and Plaintiff has not responded to 2 || the Court’s order. 3 As the Ninth Circuit has recognized “one need not be absolutely destitute to obtain 4 | benefits” of the IFP statute. Escobedo v. Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015). 5 || However, “a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness 6 || and certainty.” /d. Plaintiff has provided insufficient information in support of his motion and 7 || has not complied with the Court’s order to supplement the motion. Plaintiff has also not paid the 8 | filing fee. Plaintiffs action thus may not proceed. See Rodriguez v. Cook,

, 1177 9 || (9th Cir. 1999) (“An action may proceed despite failure to pay the filing fees only if the party is 10 | granted IFP status.”’). 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 12 1. Plaintiffs motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) be DENIED; 13 2. This action be dismissed without prejudice; and 14 3. The Clerk be directed to enter Judgment and close this case. 15 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 16 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen 17 | days after being served with these findings and recommendations, either party may file written 18 | objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 19 | Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 20 || specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. 21 | Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 22 || Dated: October 24, 2025. 23 Emko 24 SEAN C. RIORDAN 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28