Maria Eugenia Marmon v. William P. Barr et al
| Maria Eugenia Marmon |
| Thomas Homan, William P. Barr, N. Allen, G. Valdez, Medrano, Orosco, William and Jon Doe |
| 5:2020cv00633 |
| March 30, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| R Gary Klausner |
| Karen E Scott |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 4, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
ORDER RE REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Judge R. Gary Klausner that the request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis #3 is hereby DENIED. IT IS RECOMMENDED by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott for the following reasons: Inadequate showing of indigency; (1) Plaintiff did not fully answer Question 6 by indicating the percentage of her daughters' support she pays, leaving open the possibility of support from a spouse or father. (2) Plaintiff made $42,222 last year but "it was taken by IRS." Does this notation mean that the IRS took all of Plaintiff's 2020 income, and if so, why?. (3) Plaintiff owns a home worth $225,000. How much of that value is equity versus debt?. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee or file an amended request to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days. (jp)
|
|
Filing 5
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): Order Dismissing Complaint (Dkt. 2) with Leave to Amend by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint (Dkt. 2) is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. On or before June 1, 2020, Plaintiff shall do one of the following: 1. File a First Amended Complaint that attempts to remedy the defects identified in the Complaint. 2. If Plaintiff disagrees with the analysis in this screening order and/or believes she cannot add any more factual allegations to her Complaint, then she may file a notice of intent to proceed with the Complaint. *See order for further details.* (es)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge R. Gary Klausner and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (ghap) |
| Filing 3 REQUEST to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support filed by plaintiff Maria Eugenia Marmon. (ghap) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT filed against Defendants N. Allen, William P. Barr, Thomas Homan, Jon Doe, Medrano, Orosco, G. Valdez, William Case assigned to Judge R. Gary Klausner and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E Scott., filed by plaintiff Maria Eugenia Marmon. (ghap) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE RE: DISCREPANCIES WITH LODGING OF COMPLAINT mailed to Plaintiff Maria Eugenia Marmon. Upon submission of your complaint, the following discrepancy was found: You have not submitted the entire filing fee amount of $400. If you are unable to pay the entire filing fee at this time, you may request that the fee be waived. To do so, you must complete, sign, and return the enclose form, Request to Proceed in Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support (CV-60), in its entirety. If you do not respond within THIRTY DAYS from the date below, your your action will be dismissed. If your fee waiver request or payment is received within THIRTY DAYS, judges will be assigned to your case. You may return your fee waiver request or payment to any of the Courthouses listed on this notice. Re Lodged Complaint (car) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/31/2020: #1 CV-60 Form) (car). (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/31/2020: #2 Lodged Complaint) (car). |
| LODGED COMPLAINT sought to be filed by Plaintiff Maria Eugenia Marmon. (car) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
