(PC)Miller

(PC)Miller v. Mule Creek State Prison

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 5, 20222:21-cv-02104California464 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ELIJAH LEE MILLER, No. 2:21-cv-2104 WBS DB P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 4, 2022, the court reviewed an affidavit in support of plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and found plaintiff’s prison trust account statement reflected he had $1,755.42 in available funds on November 18, 2021, an amount sufficient to pre-pay the filing fees for this action. (ECF No. 8.) The court determined plaintiff had not made an adequate showing of indigency under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to support his application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995); Alexander v. Carson Adult High Sch., 9 F.3d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1993). Pursuant to the court’s April 4, 2022 order, plaintiff was granted twenty (20) days to 27 …

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.