IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 30, 2012
IGOR CHEPEL, PLAINTIFF,
JUDGE JAMES MIZE OF THE SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT, IRENA CHEPEL, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
On March 29, 2012, plaintiff filed the complaint in this case and paid the required $350 filing fee.*fn1 However, on the same day, plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (Dkt. No. 4) that seeks to avoid paying the filing fee that plaintiff already paid. Plaintiff's application is, at a minimum, suspicious given plaintiff's demonstrated ability to pay the filing fee. Moreover, plaintiff cannot claim confusion about the process of seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, having proceeded in forma pauperis in two other cases that he initiated in this court. (See Chepel, et al. v. State of Cal. Dep't of Ins., et al., 2:11-cv-02075 GEB KJN PS (E.D. Cal.); Chepel, et al. v. The Law Office of Frederick S. Cohen, et al., 2:09-cv-03548 JAM KJN PS (E.D. Cal.).)
At this point it appears that plaintiff can pay, and has paid, the required filing fee regardless of the representations in his application. Accordingly, the undersigned denies plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. Such denial is without prejudice, and plaintiff may again seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, as plaintiff should already know given his history in this court, the grant of any subsequent application to proceed in forma pauperis will result in the screening of plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 4) is denied without prejudice as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.