Opinion
2:22-cv-01868-APG-NJK
01-06-2023
ANTONIO CASTANEDA, Plaintiffs, v. J. TIMOTHY FATTIG, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOCKET NO. 6]
The Ninth Circuit has held that denial of a request to proceed in forma pauperis is a matter beyond a magistrate judge's authority, Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 549 (9th Cir. 1988), so the undersigned issues this report and recommendation to the assigned district judge.
Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 6.
Plaintiff's available funds exceed the full filing fee of $402. Id. at 3. Therefore, Plaintiff does not qualify for in forma pauperis status and must pay the entire filing fee now. See id. (section (2)(a) providing that the full filing fee is due if the current account balance is $402 or more and that the full filing fee amount must be paid before the case proceeds); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (a prisoner applying to proceed in forma pauperis must demonstrate “that the person is unable to pay such fees”).
Even were Plaintiff to qualify to proceed in forma pauperis, the full filing fee would need to be paid in installments over time. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED and that Plaintiff be required to pay the full filing fee of $402 before this case proceeds further.
Nothing herein should be construed as indicating that Plaintiff's case can proceed on its merits once the filing fee has been paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (governing screening of prisoner complaints against government entities, officers, or employees). The undersigned will address screening at a later junction as appropriate.
NOTICE
This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation must file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).