IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 29, 2009
ROBERT CUNNINGHAM, PLAINTIFF,
C/O RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marsha J. Pechman United States District Judge
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, his situation is complicated by the fact that it appears as if Plaintiff was released from custody while his IFP application was pending. (See Dkt. No. 9 (notice of change of address).) Unlike prisoners who must pay the full amount of any filing fee while proceeding IFP, non-incarcerated individuals need not pay any filing fee if their IFP status is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); see generally DeBlasio v. Gilmore, 315 F.3d 396, 398 (4th Cir. 2003) . Therefore, Plaintiff will be ordered to re-apply to proceed IFP under the general provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) -- a blank IFP application form is attached to this order for that purpose.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff is ordered (if he wishes to proceed) to re-submit an IFP application under the general provisions applicable to all non-incarcerated parties. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this order to submit that application
The clerk of the court shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of this order and all attachments.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.