(PS) Murphy, Esq. v. LMC Construction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHANNON O. MURPHY ESQ. SR., dba No. 2:20-cv-00754-KJM-AC PS

SHEETMETAL AND ASSOCIATES,

12 Plaintiff, ORDER v.

LMC CONSTRUCTION, A LENNAR

COMPANY, Defendant. 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff’s IFP application cannot be granted for two reasons. First, plaintiff does not make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). According to the application, plaintiff received money from a “Business, profession or other self-employment” during the past 12 months. ECF No. 2 at 2. However, plaintiff fails to disclose “the amount received and what you expect you will continue to receive,” stating only that his income has been “sparse,” and that his company’s income has averaged zero. See Id. at 1-2. Second, plaintiff appears to be…