Momand

(PS) Allahyar v. Momand

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 23, 20252:25-cv-00102California463 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROHULLAH ALLAHYAR, No. 2:25-cv-0102-TLN-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14

DAMAN MOMAND,

15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Plaintiff Rohullah Allahyar filed a pro se1 civil complaint naming Daman Momand as the 19 defendant and appearing to assert a claim related to a refusal to make a business payment. (ECF 20 No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) 21 On March 12, 2025, the undersigned reviewed plaintiff’s IFP affidavit and found it did not 22 demonstrate plaintiff was unable to pay the court costs because plaintiff reported a regular source 23 of income and no expenses. (ECF No. 3.) Accordingly, the court ordered plaintiff to either submit 24 the filing fee and administrative fee to the Clerk of the Court or file a renewed application to 25 proceed IFP application. (Id.) Plaintiff has not renewed the IFP application, paid the filing fee, or 26 otherwise acknowledged the court’s order filed on March 12, 2025.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.