UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 8:21-01695 JVS (ADSx) Date: January 4, 2022 Title:_Evans, et al. v. United States of America

Present: The Honorable Autumn D. Spaeth, United States Magistrate Judge

Kristee Hopkins None Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE IFP

REQUESTS OR TO PAY FILING FEE

On October 12, 2021, Plaintiffs William N. Evans, Mohammed Khan, and Ronald Norman filed this lawsuit asserting a single claim against the United States of America for a violation of the Federal Tort Claims Act. (Dkt. No. 1.) On that same date, Evans filed a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Request”). (Dkt. No. 2.) Neither Khan nor Norman filed IFP Requests. On October 18, 2021, District Judge James V. Selna denied Evans’s IFP Request as incomplete, gave him an additional 30 days to file a completed IFP Request, and ordered Khan and Norman to file IFP Requests or to pay the filing fee. (Dkt. No. 5.) The plaintiffs IFP requests or their payment of the filing fee was due November 17, 2021. (See id.)

On November 10, 2021, Judge Selna granted Evans’s motion for extension of time to file his IFP request or to pay the filing fee by November 24, 2021. (Dkt. No. 8.) On December 17, 2021, Evans filed a second IFP request without the required Certified Trust Account Statement and Disbursement Authorization. (Dkt. No. 12.) All plaintiffs who seek to proceed in forma pauperis, however, must each submit a completed IFP request and qualify for IFP status. See also McClain v. SBC Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. ED CV 17-01178-CJC (PLA), 2018 WL 3105248, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2018) (requiring all plaintiffs to file separate IFP applications); Anderson v. California, No. 10 CV 2216 MMA (AJB), 2010 WL 4316996, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2010) (“if multiple plaintiffs seek to proceed in forma pauperis, each plaintiff must qualify for IFP status”). As of the date of this order,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 8:21-01695 JVS (ADSx) Date: January 4, 2022 Title:_Evans, et al. v. United States of America the plaintiffs have neither filed completed IFP Requests or paid the filing fee.

Accordingly, Evans, Khan, and Norman are ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to file completed IFP Requests or to pay the filing fee. Each plaintiff must file a response explaining why they have not yet filed completed IFP Requests or paid the filing fee. The plaintiffs may alternatively respond to this Order by paying the filing fee or by filing separate IFP Requests (CV-60P). The plaintiffs must file their responses by no later than February 4, 2022.

Plaintiffs are expressly warned that failure to timely file a response to this Order to Show Cause will result in a dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute and obey court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The Clerk of Court is directed to provide the plaintiffs with three copies of the form titled (“Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees with Declaration in Support” (CV-60P).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Clerk kh