From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gonzales v. Rutledge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 1, 2017
Case No.: 1:17-cv-00387-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2017)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00387-LJO-BAM

05-01-2017

GERARDO GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. BILL RUTLEDGE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS BE DENIED (Docs. 2, 4) ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE IN FULL TO PROCEED WITH THIS ACTION WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS

Plaintiff Gerardo Gonzales ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on March 16, 2017. Plaintiff also sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2.)

On April 20, 2016, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that Plaintiff's application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs be denied. The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff filed objections on April 26, 2016. (Doc. 7.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

In his objections, Plaintiff clarifies that he receives the following amounts each month: (1) $1,948.00 in Social Security payments; (2) $1,378.00 from a pension; and (3) $1,080.00 in Worker's Compensation payments. Additionally, he clarifies that his housing payment of $1,678.59 and his consolidation loan of $640.00 would be deducted at the end of the month from the $3,490.00 balance in his checking account. (Doc. 7.) Following this deduction, Plaintiff would have $1171.41 in his checking account at the end of the month, and would again receive payments from Social Security, his pension and Worker's Compensation. Given this information, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff is unable to pay the fees for this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 6, 2017, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs (ECF No. 2) is denied;

3. Within thirty (30) days, Plaintiff shall pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1 , 2017

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Gonzales v. Rutledge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 1, 2017
Case No.: 1:17-cv-00387-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2017)
Case details for

Gonzales v. Rutledge

Case Details

Full title:GERARDO GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. BILL RUTLEDGE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: May 1, 2017

Citations

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00387-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2017)