Miller v. Madruga

Full title: ROSEMARY HEATHER MILLER, Plaintiff, v. MADRUGA, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: May 6, 2023

1:23-cv-00616-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. May. 6, 2023)

Opinion

1:23-cv-00616-GSA-PC

05-06-2023

ROSEMARY HEATHER MILLER, Plaintiff, v. MADRUGA, et al., Defendants.

GARY S. AUSTIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS CASE

AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED

(ECF NO. 2.)

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE BY MAY 26, 2023

GARY S. AUSTIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. FINDINGS

Rosemary Heather Miller (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.)

In the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff reports that she has cash. (ECF No. 2 at 2 ¶ 4.) Plaintiff's prison trust account statement shows that on April 6, 2023, she had a balance of $6,030.40 in the account. (ECF No. 6 at 2.) Under these facts the court finds that Plaintiff can afford the $402.00 filing fee for this action. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied, and Plaintiff should be required to pay the statutory filing fee of $402.00 for this action in full.

II. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on April 21, 2023, be DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff be required to pay the $402.00 filing fee for this action in full.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On or before May 26, 2023, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.