Uber

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMIAH ALLEN RUTH, No. 2:25–cv–02403–DC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 UBER, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant 18 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court now recommends that Plaintiff’s 19 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2) be DENIED and the action be 20 dismissed without prejudice. 21 Plaintiff filed his complaint and the motion for IFP on August 22, 2025. ECF Nos. 1 & 2. 22 On October 1, 2025, this Court issued an Order finding that the motion makes an insufficient 23 showing to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3 at 1. The Court noted that the motion for IFP 24 contained several omissions concerning income and expenses. Id. at 1-2. 25 The Court directed Plaintiff to supplement the motion for IFP within 14 days, or 26 alternatively Plaintiff could pay the filing fee within 14 days. ECF No. 3 at 2. …