Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reyes v. Modesto

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 2, 2010

VICTORIA REYES; JOSE REYES, JR., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JOSEPH MODESTO; DAVID JAKABOSKY; MICHELLE DAVIS TATE; RICHARD WINTERS; AND NANCY MEUER DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff Victoria Reyes, who is proceeding without counsel, has not paid the fee ordinarily required to file an action in this court and previously filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees, or in forma pauperis, which the undersigned determined was incomplete. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). In a March 10, 2010 order directing Ms. Reyes to file a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, the undersigned specifically noted that Ms. Reyes's prior application did "not provide required information about her employment:

(1) the amount of Ms. Reyes's take-home salary or wages and pay period, and (2) the name and address of Ms. Reyes's employer." (Dkt. No. 4 at 1-2.) That order also indicated that Ms. Reyes's previous application stated that Ms. Reyes had received money through a business, profession or other self-employment, but that the application did not provide "the required description identifying: (1) each source of the money, (2) the amount received, and (3) what amount, if any, she expects she will continue to receive." (Id. at 2.) That order provided Ms. Reyes with an opportunity to submit a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, but cautioned her that failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. (Id.)

On March 19, 2010, Ms. Reyes filed another application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 5.) However, this second application suffers from the same defects as the first application. First, the application states that Ms. Reyes is employed, but does not provide either (1) the amount of Ms. Reyes's take-home salary or wages and pay period, or (2) the name and address of Ms. Reyes's employer. (Id. at 1.) This information is specifically required by the form application, and Ms. Reyes has again failed to provide this information.

Second, Ms. Reyes's application indicates that in the last 12 months she has received money through a "[b]usiness, profession or other self-employment," and that she has received money from "[r]ent payments, interest or dividends." (Id.) Because Ms. Reyes indicated that she received money from these sources, she is required to "describe each source of money and state the amount received and what [she expects she] will continue to receive." (Id. (emphasis in original).) She has not provided this required information.

At this time, the undersigned cannot grant Ms. Reyes's application to proceed in forma pauperis. Ms. Reyes's application simply does not provide the court with the information required to properly evaluate whether granting in forma pauperis status would be appropriate in this instance.

However, notwithstanding the court's prior warning that failure to comply with its order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed, the undersigned will permit Ms. Reyes another opportunity to submit a completed application. She must fill out the application form completely. For example, Ms. Reyes must provide (1) the amount of her take- home salary or wages and pay period, and (2) the name and address of employer. In addition, with respect to her income from "[b]usiness, profession or other self-employment," she must provide information about (1) each source of the money, (2) the amount received, and (3) what amount, if any, she expects she will continue to receive. She must do the same with respect to her income from "[r]ent payments, interest or dividends." Ms. Reyes is again warned that failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff Victoria Reyes shall submit, within twenty (20) days from the date of this order, either a completed application and affidavit in support of her request to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided by the Clerk of Court, or the appropriate filing fee. Her failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to Ms. Reyes a new Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit.

20100402

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.