From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Melero v. Ruiz

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 16, 2021
1:21-cv-01226-NE-EPG (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2021)

Opinion

1:21-cv-01226-NE-EPG

08-16-2021

NARISSA MELERO, Plaintiff, v. GABRIEL RUIZ, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF NO. 2.)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE LONG FORM APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS OR PAY FILING FEE THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Narissa Melero (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, has applied to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this action. (ECF No. 2.)

Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was not adequately completed. In response to question one on her application, Plaintiff indicated that she is incarcerated and is being held at “99 cent store.” Plaintiff did not respond to the portion of question two directing Plaintiff to list her employer's name and address if she is not incarcerated and is employed. Plaintiff listed her gross pay or wages as $385.00 in response to question two, but did not specify her take-home pay or wages and did not specify the pay period. Additionally, in response to question three, Plaintiff indicated that she has received income in the past twelve months from a business, profession, other self-employment, rent payments, interest or dividends, and gifts or inheritances. However, in response to question three's directive to describe each source of money, state the amount received, and identify what Plaintiff expects to receive in the future, Plaintiff stated “okay send me the bill if needed to 4230 E Fairfax #102, Fresno, CA 93701.” In response to question six, which requires a description of any housing, transportation, utilities, loan payments, or other regular monthly expenses and the amount of the monthly expense, Plaintiff stated “just Rent I have mine and my roommate's agreement of what I pay” and did not specify the amount of her rent expense.

Plaintiffs application, as written, is insufficient for the Court to determine if she is entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees in this action. Without a fully completed IFP application, Plaintiff has not made the showing required to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The application will accordingly be denied without prejudice and the Court will order Plaintiff to complete and file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) - AO 239. Plaintiff must accurately and adequately answer the questions presented on the form. If Plaintiff is unwilling to complete and submit the long form application, Plaintiff must pay the filing fee in full.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without prejudice;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) - AO 239 to Plaintiff; and

3. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall either (1) pay the $402.00 filing fee for this action, or (2) complete and file the enclosed Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) - AO 239. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court may dismiss this action for failure to obey a court order and/or failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Melero v. Ruiz

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 16, 2021
1:21-cv-01226-NE-EPG (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2021)
Case details for

Melero v. Ruiz

Case Details

Full title:NARISSA MELERO, Plaintiff, v. GABRIEL RUIZ, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 16, 2021

Citations

1:21-cv-01226-NE-EPG (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2021)