Walker

Walker v. United States Congress

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaOctober 6, 20253:25-cv-02064California1,544 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN WALKER, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02064-JES-BLM

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER:

13 v. (1) OVERRULING OBJECTION TO 14 UNITED STATES CONGRESS,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

15 Defendant. RECONSIDER ORDER DENYING

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

16 PAUPERIS; and 17 (2) DENYING MOTION TO 18

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

19 20 [ECF No. 7] 21 22 On September 11, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff Steven Walker’s (“Plaintiff”) 23 motion to reconsider the Court’s previous denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis 24 (“IFP”). ECF No. 5. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file a renewed 25 motion to proceed IFP by September 19, 2025. Id. 26 On September 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Court’s Order Denying the 27 Motion to Reconsider the Order Denying his Motion to Proceed IFP. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff 28 raises four objections: (1) the IFP Application form is insufficient and “does not take into 1 consideration…

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.