From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

White v. City of Vallejo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 31, 2014
No. 2:14-cv-1603 MCE AC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 31, 2014)

Opinion

No. 2:14-cv-1603 MCE AC

07-31-2014

CHRISTOPHER WHITE, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF VALLEJO, ET AL., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiffs Christopher White, Dantrell Stevens, Zerita White and G'Shelle White initiated this action on July 8, 2014. Accompanying the complaint is plaintiff Christopher White's motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). See ECF No. 2. On review, the Court notes that Christopher White's motion is incomplete and will therefore be denied without prejudice to its renewal.

Additionally, the Court notes that none of the other plaintiffs have filed applications to proceed in forma pauperis. No named plaintiff is excused from tendering the filing fee if he possesses sufficient funds to do so. See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 340 (1948) (stating that petitioner who completed in forma pauperis application cannot be denied right of appeal because other claimants have not; petitioners who have not completed applications or are unwilling to tender the fee may not reap benefits from appeal perfected by other petitioner); Norman v. Mellon Bank, 1990 WL 186989, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 1990) (stating that in a multiple plaintiff case, leave to proceed in forma pauperis should not be granted until declarations of poverty for all plaintiffs have been reviewed by the court); see also Ruffino v. Lantz, 2009 WL 700653, at * 3 (D. Conn. 2009). Thus, any person seeking to file an action without prepayment of the filing fee must submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff Christopher White's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied without prejudice to its renewal;



2. The remaining three plaintiffs must also file motions to proceed in forma pauperis or, in the alternative, the $400.00 filing fee must be paid in full by any or all of the plaintiff and



3. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation for dismissal.
DATED: July 31, 2014

/s/_________

ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

White v. City of Vallejo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 31, 2014
No. 2:14-cv-1603 MCE AC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 31, 2014)
Case details for

White v. City of Vallejo

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER WHITE, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF VALLEJO, ET AL.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 31, 2014

Citations

No. 2:14-cv-1603 MCE AC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 31, 2014)