United States District Court, E.D. California
REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS LOURDES AYALA, TINO PARTIDO, MARIBEL
AYALA, TERESA WARE, AND MARIA DIAZ TO FILE APPLICATIONS TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS LOURDES
AYALA, TINO PARTIDO, MARIBEL AYALA, TERESA WARE, AND MARIA
DIAZ TO FILE A SIGNED COMPLAINT TO PROCEED PRO SE ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF JOHN COLLADO'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND REQUIRING JOHN
COLLADO TO FILE A REVISED APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS (ECF Nos. 1, 2) FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
19, 2019, John Collado, Lourdes Ayala, Tino Partido, Maribel
Ayala, Teresa Ware, and Maria Diaz
(“Plaintiffs”), filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On July 19, 2019, Plaintiff
John Collado filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) The Court finds multiple issues
with these filing that Plaintiffs must address, as explained
in this order.
filed complaint was signed on behalf of Plaintiff John
Collado only, proceeding pro se. (ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiffs are advised that Local Rule 131(b) of the Eastern
District of California requires that all pleadings “be
signed by the individual attorney for the party presenting
them, or by the party involved if that party is
appearing” pro se in the action. Plaintiff
John Collado is proceeding pro se and as such has no
authority to appear on behalf of other individuals. Each
named Plaintiff must sign the complaint on behalf of
themselves if they wish to proceed pro se in this
action, or must have a licensed attorney that represents them
in the action sign and submit any filings. See L.R.
131(b); Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874,
877 (9th Cir. 1997); C. E. Pope Equity Trust v. United
States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987).
are advised that if and when the Court screens the complaint
as filed, the Court will recommend dismissal or striking of
any of the named Plaintiffs who did not sign the complaint as
they are not represented by an attorney in this action. If
Plaintiffs Lourdes Ayala, Tino Partido, Maribel Ayala, Teresa
Ware, and Maria Diaz wish to proceed pro se in this
action, they shall file an amended complaint which includes
each of their signatures.
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
John Collado was the only named Plaintiff that submitted an
application to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) in this action. (ECF No. 2.) All parties
instituting any civil action are required to pay the filing
fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may
only proceed despite the failure to pay a filing fee if the
party is granted in forma pauperis status.
Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir.
1999). All parties seeking to proceed in forma
pauperis must qualify for in forma pauperis
status. Anderson v. California, No.
3:10-cv-02216-MMA (AJB), 2010 WL 4316996, at *1 (S.D. Cal.
Oct. 27, 2010). If Plaintiffs Lourdes Ayala, Tino Partido,
Maribel Ayala, Teresa Ware, and Maria Diaz wish to proceed in
this action, they shall file an application to proceed in
forma pauperis, completed and signed, or in the
alternative, pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action.
Plaintiff John Collado signifies in the IFP application that
he is currently incarcerated. (ECF No. 2 at 1.) As indicated
on page two of the IFP application, if Plaintiff John Collado
is in fact currently an incarcerated prisoner, he must
“submit an affidavit stating all assets, ” and
“must attach a statement certified by the appropriate
institutional officer showing all receipts, expenditures, and
balances during the last six months in your institutional
accounts.” (ECF No. 2 at 2.) The Court notes that the
civil cover sheet for the complaint indicates that the action
is, in part, a prisoner civil rights action. (ECF No. 1-1.)
Plaintiff provides one address in the complaint and provides
a different address in the IFP application, neither of which
appear to be a correctional institution. If Plaintiff John
Collado is in fact incarcerated, he must submit the
additional materials described on page two of the IFP
application, and he will be required to pay the full amount
of the filing through deductions to his prison trust account.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b). If Plaintiff John Collado is not incarcerated, he
must submit a revised IFP application indicating that he is
the complaint states that the “S.S.A. [is] playing
games with entitled disability benefits.” (ECF No. 1 at
7.) If Plaintiff John Collado is in fact receiving disability
benefits or other payments, he must so state in his IFP
application, which as submitted, indicates he is receiving no
on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen
(14) days from ...