Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Collado v. Urambula

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 25, 2019

JOHN COLLADO, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JUAN URAMBULA, et al., Defendants.

         ORDER 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

         On July 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.

         I.

         COMPLAINT

         The 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).

         Plaintiffs 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.

         II.

         APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

         Plaintiff 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.

         Further, 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 not incarcerated.

         Additionally 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 such benefits.

         III.

         CONCLUSION AND ORDER

         Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days from ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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