Highland Creek Associates v. Claudia M. Bica

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaFebruary 22, 20248:24-cv-00336California716 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

JS6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE NUMBER

CREEK ASSOCIATES

8:24-CV-00336-DOC-DFMx

PLAINTIFF(S)

v.

M. BICA ORDER ON REQUEST TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

DEFENDANT(S) (NON-PRISONER CASE)

The Court has reviewed the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (the "Request") and the documents submitted with it. On the question of indigency, the Court finds that the party who filed the Request: [_] is not able to pay the filing fees. [_] is able to pay the filing fees. has not submitted enough information for the Court to tell if the filer is able to pay the filing fees. This is what is missing:

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: [_] The Request is GRANTED. [_] Ruling on the Request is POSTPONED for 30 days so that the filer may provide additional information. [_] The Request is DENIED because the filer has the ability to pay. As explained in the attached statement, the Request is DENIED because: The District Court lacks [x] subject matter jurisdiction [k] removal jurisdiction. [_] The action is frivolous or malicious. [_] The action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. [_] The…

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.