Keith Reagan Carter-Maddox v. Concord Police Department

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEITH REAGAN CARTER-MADDOX, No. 2:25-cv-03016-TLN-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CONCORD POLICE DEPARTMENT, 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). Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in 19 forma pauperis (“IFP”) is incomplete. The Court will deny the motion and allow Plaintiff leave 20 to file a renewed motion or pay the filing fee. 21 The motion makes an insufficient showing to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The 22 Ninth Circuit has recognized “one need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits” of the IFP 23 statute. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). However, “a plaintiff 24 seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. 25 (internal citation and quotation omitted). The current application contains several omissions. For 26 example, the…