1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHELLA C. ALFARO BRITTANY, No. 2:25-cv-00778-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING

14 YOLO COUNTY POLICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN DEPARTMENT, et al., FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING 15 PLAINTIFF TO PAY FILING FEE Defendants. 16 (Doc. Nos. 2, 3)

17 18 Plaintiff Michella C. Alfaro Brittany proceeds pro se in this civil rights action. The matter 19 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 20 Rule 302. 21 On March 13, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be denied 23 because plaintiff’s application did not establish that she was unable to pay the required filing fee 24 in full on account of her poverty. (Doc. No. 3.) The magistrate judge found that the application 25 in support of plaintiff’s motion indicated that plaintiff earns a monthly gross income of $25,000, 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 has $65,000 in her checking account, and has no listed debt.1 (Doc. Nos. 2 at 1–2; 3 at 2.) The 2 magistrate judge concluded that, on this showing, plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that she has 3 “insufficient assets to pay the filing fee and costs and provide the necessities of life to herself and 4 her dependents.” (Doc. No. 3 at 2); see also Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th 5 Cir. 2015) (“The IFP statute does not define what constitutes insufficient assets. As this court has 6 recognized, one need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis 7 statute. . . . Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some 8 particularity, definiteness[,] and certainty.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Jefferson 9 v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960) and United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 10 940 (9th Cir. 1981)). 11 Those pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 12 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 13 2.) To date, no objections to the pending findings and recommendations have been filed and the 14 time in which to do so has passed. 15 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 16 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 17 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 18 Accordingly, 19 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 13, 2025 (Doc. No. 3) are 20 adopted in full; 21 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied; 22 3. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall 23 pay the $405.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action; and 24 ///// 25 ///// 26

27 1 The undersigned observes that plaintiff indicates in her application that she does have a “housing mortgage payment” and “loan payments” but does not indicate the amount of those 28 debts or the amount of her monthly payment on the balances due. (Doc. No. 2 at 2.) 1 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 2 proceedings. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _May 9, 2025 Dab A. 2, sxe 5 DALE A. DROZD ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28