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.

Dennis Maric v. Fresno County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 26, 2012

DENNIS MARIC,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
FRESNO COUNTY, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Document 2)

On January 23, 2012, Plaintiff Dennis Maric filed a complaint with this Court. (Doc. 1.) That same date, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit. (Doc. 2.) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's application is DENIED.

Plaintiff indicated he is self-employed, earning approximately $48,000 gross annually with a monthly take home pay or wages of approximately $1,448. It is his sole source of income. (Doc. 2 at 1.) Next, Plaintiff indicated he has $3,100 in cash, or in a checking or savings account. (Doc. 2 at 2.) He owns a diesel truck used for work, and real property in Sanger, California, noting he owes more on the loan for the property than it is currently worth. Plaintiff's housing, transportation, utilities, or loan payments, or other regular monthly expenses, are recorded as approximately $500 per month. Finally, Plaintiff's wife Mary and three daughters are dependent upon him for support. He assigns the sum of $828 as the price of his monthly contribution to the support of his wife and daughters.*fn1 (Doc. 2 at 2.)

After considering Plaintiff's application, the application is denied. Plaintiff currently has $3,100 in cash, or a checking or savings account. Thus, funds are available to Plaintiff well in excess of the filing fee. As a result, Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed without payment of the filing fee.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is advised that in order to proceed with his action in this Court, he must pay a filing fee of $350.00 (see 28 U.S.C. § 1914) no later than February 15, 2012.

As an aside, and assuming the necessary filing fee is paid, Plaintiff is advised that the Court will screen his complaint in due course. Further, summonses will not be issued by the Clerk of the Court unless and until the filing fee has been paid and the complaint has been screened by the assigned magistrate judge and deemed appropriate for service. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall make no attempt or further attempt to serve his complaint upon the named Defendants. Plaintiff is advised that the Court will dismiss a case at any time if it determines that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant or defendants who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See also Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir. 1981).

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees is DENIED. As a result, Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee of $350.00 no later than February 15, 2012, in order to proceed with this action. Failure to comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.