IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 20, 2010
BENNIE RAY BROWN, PLAINTIFF,
OFFICERS JESS BEAGLEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. 2)
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks also to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). (Doc. 2)
Upon review, the Court notes discrepancies between Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP and his complaint. In his motion, Plaintiff asserts that he has no income of any kind from any source. (Doc. 2 at 2) However, in his complaint, Plaintiff reports that he receives social security benefits. (Doc. 1 at 4) Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended motion to proceed IFP and is required to list all sources of his income.
Also, Plaintiff reports that he provides support to "Little Bernie Brown" but fails to indicate his relationship to this person and how much he contributes toward his support. If "Little Bernie Brown" is 18 years old or older, Plaintiff is ordered to explain why this person is dependant upon him for support, whether he actually lives in Plaintiff's home and whether this person contributes to Plaintiff's household expenses. See Adkins v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948); see also Monti v. McKeon, 600 F.Supp. 112, 114 (D. Conn. 1984) ("in ruling on motions to proceed in forma pauperis, . . . courts have considered the income of interested persons, such as spouses and parents, in evaluating the funds available to the movant . . . If plaintiff is supported by her spouse, and her spouse is financially able to pay the costs of this appeal, it follows that the plaintiff's own lack of funds will not prevent her from gaining access to the courts.")
Accordingly, within ten days of service of this order, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended motion to proceed IFP that contains the information outlined in the body of this order. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to comply with this order may result in denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.