Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denies without prejudice Perrielin Sessions’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because the application does not specify the frequency of the plaintiff’s reported pay periods. The court orders the plaintiff, within 30 days, to pay the filing and administrative fees or submit a completed and signed renewed IFP affidavit, warning that failure to do so may result in a recommendation of dismissal.
Holdings
- An in forma pauperis application does not demonstrate indigency when the applicant reports income by pay period but fails to identify the frequency of that pay period, leaving the court unable to calculate income.
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis demonstrated an inability to pay the filing and administrative fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (3)
- Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
- Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)(followed)
- United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…