(PC)Woods v. Taylor et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RICHARD WOODS,
Plaintiff,
v.
T. TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 1:25-cv-01449-SKO
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
FILING OF DECEMBER 3, 2025
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
PROVIDE A COMPLETE INMATE TRUST
ACCOUNT STATEMENT AND
DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY EXPLAINING DEPOSITS AND
WITHDRAWALS
14-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Richard Woods is appearing pro se in this civil rights action.
I. INTRODUCTION
On October 31, 2025, the Court issued its Order to Submit Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis or Pay Filing Fee Within 45 Days. (Doc. 3.) On November 18, 2025, Plaintiff
filed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) by a Prisoner. (Doc. 5.)
On November 20, 2025, the Court issued its Order Directing Plaintiff to Provide an
Inmate Trust Account Statement Within 14 Days. (Doc. 1.) On December 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed
an untitled document, docketed as an Inmate Trust Account Statement, indicating he was
providing his “6 Month Trust Account Statement.” (Doc. 7.) Attached was a one-page document
bearing the heading “Federal Bureau of Prisons.” (Id. at 2.)
Case 1:25-cv-01449-KES-EGC Document 8 Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
II. DISCUSSION
A review of Plaintiff’s December 3, 2025, submission reveals that it is an insufficient
response to the Court’s order. Plaintiff was directed to provide an inmate trust account statement
“’showing transactions for the past six months,’ [because the Court could not] determine whether
a grant of IFP status [was] appropriate despite the 28-cent balance in Plaintiff’s account on
November 12,” and noted that the Court can consider “deposits and purchases in determining
whether an individual should be granted IFP status. Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th
Cir. 1995) ….” (Doc. 6 at 2.) However, the recent submission does not include six-month activity
of deposits and/or payments, or information regarding any purchases and/or sales.
Instead, the document provided includes a “Phone Balance” of $58.16, an “Account
Balance” and “Available Balance” of $0.18, a “Pre-Release Balance” of $0.00, other zero
balances pertaining to various encumbrances, instruments and/or holds, a “National 6 Months
Deposits” total of $2,829.43, a “National 6 Months Withdrawals” total of $3,077.33, and an
“Available Funds to be considered for IFRP Payments” total of $2,379.43. (Doc. 7 at 2.)
This Court is familiar with the typical inmate trust account statements available to federal
prisoners. Plaintiff’s submission appears incomplete and does not include the “Commissary
History,” “Commissary Restrictions,” or “Comments” sections of a statement that typically
follow the Account Balances section. The page is also not numbered.1 As submitted, the
statement appears to indicate that at some point during the previous six months Plaintiff’s account
received over $2,800 in deposits and that Plaintiff withdrew over $3,000 during that same period,
suggesting may have Plaintiff had sufficient funds to pay the full filing fee for this action.
Without an explanation2 for those deposits and withdrawals, the Court still cannot determine
1 Given lack of page numbers on the page provided, coupled with the dark line along one-half of the right-
side of the page, additional information may have been available on a second page. The printout also does
not include https://.../truweb/ and report date information typically seen at the very bottom of a statement.
2 Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted) (courts are entitled to consider
plaintiffs’ “economic choices about how to spend [their] money” when considering applications to proceed
IFP); see also Lumbert v. Illinois Dep’t of Corr., 827 F.2d 257, 260 (7th Cir. 1987) (“If the inmate thinks
that a more worthwhile use of his funds would be to buy peanuts and candy . . . than to file a civil rights
suit, he has demonstrated an implied evaluation of the suit that the district court is entitled to honor”);
Owens v. Schultz, No. 1:24-cv-00820-SKO, 2024 WL 3722881, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. July 19, 2024)
(directing plaintiff to “explain the sixteen [deposits] appearing on his Inmate Statement Report”).
Case 1:25-cv-01449-KES-EGC Document 8 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
whether Plaintiff is entitled to IFP status.
Therefore, Plaintiff will be required to resubmit a complete inmate trust account statement
which shall include the statement’s page numbers to reflect when the entire statement was printed
and shall include a declaration under penalty of perjury regarding the six-month period prior to
and including October 30, 2025 (the date his complaint was filed), that explains each deposit and
each withdrawal made during that period.
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that:
1. Within 14 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL submit a
complete inmate trust account statement, to include numbered pages, for the six-month
period prior to October 30, 2025; and
2. Within 14 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL also provide a
declaration, under penalty of perjury, concerning that same period, and explaining the
following:
a. All deposits made during the relevant period, including identifying the source
of the deposited funds, whether inmate pay or gift, or otherwise; and
b. All purchases and/or sale transactions made during the relevant period,
identifying the item or items purchased for each transaction.
Plaintiff is advised that a failure to comply with this order will result in a
recommendation that this action be dismissed for a failure to obey court orders and failure
to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 4, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01449-KES-EGC Document 8 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 3