Opinion
No. C07-06057 HRL.
March 28, 2008
ORDER GRANTING (SECOND) APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Re: Docket No. 8
Darlene Brewer sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and concurrently applied to proceed in forma pauperis. On March 17, 2008, this court denied Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis because her income, as listed on the application, was sufficient to allow Brewer to pay the court filing fee without depriving her of the ability to pay for necessities. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) ; Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-340 (1948). [Docket No. 6]. Brewer then filed a second in forma pauperis application.
Plaintiff consents to having this matter heard and finally adjudicated by the undersigned. FED.R.CIV.P. 73; 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly, this court has authority to decide this application. See, e.g., Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that absent consent of all parties to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, Magistrate Judge not authorized to deny motion to proceed in forma pauperis). Because Defendant has not yet been served, it is not a party to this action for purposes of determining jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
This second application satisfies the court that Brewer "cannot because of [her] poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide [herself] and dependents' with the necessities of life." Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339. Therefore, Plaintiff's application is GRANTED and the Clerk shall issue summons.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint, any amendments, attachments, scheduling orders, plaintiff's affidavit and this order upon the defendant. As set in this court's prior order, the deadline for serving that summons is June 12, 2008.
The case management conference shall be held on July 8, 2008 at 1:30 p.m (Courtroom 2, 5th floor of the United States District Court, San Jose). The parties' joint case management statement is due July 1, 2008.
Plaintiff has a continuing obligation to keep the court informed of her current address. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action.