(PS) Miller v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HERBERT EDWARD MILLER, No. 2:21–cv–61–JAM–KJN Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC, et al., (ECF No. 38.) Defendants. 16 Presently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal, filed in tandem with his notice of interlocutory appeal. (ECF No. 38.) Although plaintiff is currently still represented by counsel, the district judge assigned to this case referred the IFP matter to the undersigned for resolution under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (See ECF No. 40.) For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends plaintiff’s IFP motion be denied. See Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 548-49 (9th Cir. 1988) (absent consent of all parties, magistrate judge lacks authority to issue dispositive order denying in forma pauperis status). /// /// /// /// …