Pittman v. Sanchez
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:25-cv-05263
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Pittman v. Sanchez: Judge Van Keulen ordered more financial information before deciding Pittman’s request to proceed without paying filing fees.
Randy Dewayne Pittman, who is representing himself, must provide the supplemental financial information requested by the court. The court has not yet decided whether he may proceed without prepaying filing fees.
What happened
In Pittman v. Sanchez, self-represented plaintiff Randy Dewayne Pittman filed a complaint alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He requested various forms of relief and asked to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court found that Pittman’s financial application was technically complete but contained information that appeared inconsistent with his complaint. The court therefore ordered him to provide more information about his residency, income, current residence, and living expenses.
Judge Susan Van Keulen gave Pittman until August 15, 2025, to file a supplemental declaration. Judge Van Keulen said the court would otherwise evaluate the application as submitted, which could result in denial of the request.
The detailed version
- Pittman v. Sanchez · No. 5:25-cv-05263
- Susan Van Keulen
- July 18, 2025
Background
On June 23, 2025, self-represented plaintiff Randy Dewayne Pittman filed a complaint against Yesema Sanchez. The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages, based on alleged violations of Pittman’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Pittman also filed an application to proceed without prepaying filing fees, commonly called an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a court may allow a person to start a civil case without prepaying filing fees if the person submits financial information showing an inability to pay. The court explained that it may examine the facts supporting a claim of poverty.
Court’s Order
The court stated that Pittman’s application was technically complete, but that information in the application appeared inconsistent with information in the complaint. The application stated that Pittman received $150 per month in general assistance from either Santa Clara County or California, while the complaint alleged that he was a resident of Alabama. The application also listed monthly expenses of $0 for rent, food, utilities, and clothing, while the complaint stated that mail sent to Pittman had been returned unopened by the United States Postal Service, suggesting that he had an address.
The court ordered Pittman to file a supplemental declaration answering questions about whether he had ever been, or was currently, a resident of Santa Clara County or California; whether he received money from Alabama or an Alabama county; the location of his current residence, if any; and how his rent, food, and utilities cost $0. The declaration was due no later than August 15, 2025.
The court did not decide the application at that time. It stated that if Pittman did not file the supplemental declaration, it would analyze the application as submitted, which might result in denial. The order was issued by Susan Van Keulen, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.