prisoners are in 3 state custody “and accordingly have the ‘essentials of life’ provided by the government.”
How later courts described this case
- prisoners are in 3 state custody “and accordingly have the ‘essentials of life’ provided by the government.”
- recognizing that an ability not to be 22 able to pay for oneself and his dependents “the necessities of life” is sufficient
- abrogated on different 16 grounds
- “Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in 19 determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute's requirement of indigency.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 GREGORY C. JONES, Case No. 1:22-cv-01470-HBK (HC)
12 Petitioner, ORDER TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMENDATIONS TO
DENY PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
14 B.M. TRATE, Warden-USP Atwater, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 2)
16 FOURTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD
17
18 Petitioner Gregory C. Jones, a federal prisoner who is proceeding pro se, initiated this
19 action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on November 14,
20 2022. (Doc. No. 1). Petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2, “IFP”).
21 On November 22, 2022, due to the balance in Petitioner’s inmate trust fund account, the
22 undersigned entered an order to (1) withdraw his motion to proceed IFP and direct officials at
23 Atwater U.S. Penitentiary to submit the $5.00 filing fee to the Clerk of Court; or (2) show cause
24 why he meets the indigence requirement to proceed IFP. (Doc. No. 4). Petitioner did not respond
25 to the Order, and the deadline for doing so has passed. Therefore, the undersigned recommends
26 Petitioner be denied IFP status and he be required to pay the $5.00 filing fee due to having
27 sufficient funds in his inmate account.
28 ////
1
BACKGROUND
2
Petitioner is currently confined at United States Penitentiary, Atwater. In his IFP
3
application, Petitioner declares he is unable to pre-pay the full amount of fees and costs for these
4
proceedings or give security and believes that he is entitled to the relief sought in his petition.
5
(Doc. No. 2 at 1). However, the Inmate Inquiry attached to the application confirms Petitioner
6
has an available sum of $1,469.27 in his inmate account as of November 8, 2022. (Id. at 3).
7
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
8
A petition for habeas corpus must be accompanied by the applicable filing fee or a request
9
for leave to proceed IFP. See Rule 3(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.1 The IFP
10
request must include “the affidavit required by 29 U.S.C. § 1915, and a certificate from the
11
warden or other appropriate officer of the place of confinement showing the amount of money or
12
securities that the petitioner has in any account in the institution.” Id. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914,
13
the filing fee for a habeas action is $5.00.
14
Proceeding IFP in a habeas action or a civil rights action is “a matter of privilege and not
15
right.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984) (abrogated on different
16
grounds). A determination of indigency rests within the court’s discretion. California Men’s
17
Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), reversed on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194
18
(1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in
19
determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute's requirement of indigency.”). Although
20
an IFP applicant need not be “destitute” a showing of indigence is required. Adkins v. E.I.
21
DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948) (recognizing that an ability not to be
22
able to pay for oneself and his dependents “the necessities of life” is sufficient). Thus, an
23
applicant must allege indigence “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty” before IFP
24
can be granted. United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981).
25
26 1 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases may be applied to petitions for writ of habeas corpus other than
those brought under § 2254 at the Court’s discretion. See Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
27 Cases. Civil Rule 81(a)(2) provides that the rules are “applicable to proceedings for . . . habeas corpus . . .
to the extent that the practice in such proceedings is not set forth in statutes of the United States and has
28 heretofore conformed to the practice of civil actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P 81(a)(2).
1 Petitioner does not incur expenses in prison for necessities such as sustenance, housing,
2 and medical care. See Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 2002) (prisoners are in
3 state custody “and accordingly have the ‘essentials of life’ provided by the government.”).
4 Although the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “the filing fee . . . should not take the
5 prisoner’s last dollar,” Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995), the information
6 provided by Petitioner reflects that he has sufficient funds to pre-pay the $5.00 filing fee in full to
7 commence this action and still will have adequate funds left over for any incidental personal or
8 commissary expenses. Thus, the undersigned recommends that Petitioner’s motion to proceed in
9 forma pauperis be denied.
10 The Court has already ordered Petitioner to show cause why he is unable to pay the filing
11 fee (Doc. No. 4) and Petitioner failed to respond to the show cause order. Thus, if Petitioner fails
12 to pay the $5.00 filing fee after being afforded thirty days to pay the fee, the district court may
13 properly dismiss this action without further notice. Young v. U.S., 465 F. App’x 597, 598 (9th
14 Cir. 2012) (memorandum) (district court did not abuse discretion for dismissing habeas petition
15 after petitioner did not timely pay the filing fee or provide an IFP application) (citing James v.
16 Madison Street Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 28 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (explaining requirements for
17 timely filing by pro se prisoner of application) ); Culler v. Board of Prison Terms, 405 F. App’x
18 263, 264 (9th Cir. 2010) (memorandum) (same); Scott v. LaMarque, 27 F. App’x 858, 859 (9th
19 Cir. 2001) (memorandum) (affirming dismissal for petitioner’s failure to comply with order to
20 pay filing fee or show cause why he could not pay); see also Hammond v. Asuncion, 2019 WL
21 1454200 (C.D. Cal. April 1, 2019 (collecting cases).
22 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
23 The Clerk shall assign a district court judge to this case for the purposes of reviewing
24 these findings and recommendations.
25 It is further RECOMMENDED:
26 1. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be DENIED.
27 2. Petitioner be required to pay the $5.00 filing fee for this habeas action within thirty
28 (30) days of the Court’s order adopting these Findings and Recommendations, absent which the
1 | Court will automatically dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 and
2 | Local Rule 110.
3 NOTICE TO PARTIES
4 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge
5 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14)
6 | days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written
7 | objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
8 | Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
9 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,
10 | 838-39 (Oth Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
11
12 Dated: _ January 6, 2023 Gow Zh. Bareh Zack
13 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28