Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Paul Anthony Thomas, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Bordewick and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Along with his complaint, Thomas submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis, seeking to commence the action without prepayment of the filing fee.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees and costs by a person who submits an affidavit indicating an inability to pay the fee or give security. The magistrate judge reviewed Thomas's prisoner trust account statement as part of the screening of his indigency claim.
The document, captioned 'Order and Findings and Recommendations' in No. 2:26-cv-3659 and filed November 3, 2026, does not screen the merits of the Section 1983 claims. It addresses only the fee-waiver application and the administrative assignment of a district judge to the case.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge concluded that Thomas's prisoner trust account statement showed he could afford to pay the filing fee, and that he had therefore made an inadequate showing of indigency. The court cited Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995), and Alexander v. Carson Adult High School, 9 F.3d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1993), in support of that conclusion.
The court ordered the Clerk of the Court to assign a district court judge to the case. Separately, it issued findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that Thomas's motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that he be ordered to pay the $405 filing fee for the action.
The recommendations were submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case. Thomas was advised that he had fourteen days from service to file written objections captioned 'Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations,' and that failure to object within that period would waive the right to appeal the District Court's order, citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner trust account statement showing sufficient funds can defeat an in forma pauperis application even where the applicant is an incarcerated pro se litigant, because the statutory inquiry turns on actual ability to pay rather than incarceration status alone.
- The magistrate judge treated the IFP ruling as a recommendation subject to review by the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) rather than as a final, immediately effective order.
- The only directive framed as an immediate order was the Clerk's assignment of a district court judge; the denial of IFP status and the $405 fee obligation were recommendations, not final dispositions.
- Thomas must pay the full $405 filing fee if the district judge adopts the recommendation, or his action cannot proceed without prepayment of the fee.
- Failure to file written objections within fourteen days of service waives the right to appeal the district court's eventual order on the IFP motion, as the order expressly advises under Martinez v. Ylst.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the gatekeeping role of the in forma pauperis determination in prisoner civil rights litigation. Even before the merits of a Section 1983 claim are screened, a prisoner who cannot demonstrate indigency must front the filing fee, which can function as a practical barrier to suit. The trust account review shows that courts examine actual financial resources, not merely the applicant's status as a prisoner.
The decision also reflects the standard Eastern District of California practice of having magistrate judges handle IFP applications in prisoner cases through findings and recommendations, preserving the district judge's ultimate authority while advising pro se litigants of the consequences of failing to object within fourteen days.