civil-litigation federal-courts court-watch

Financial Entry for IFP Filing Fee Recorded in Wagner et al v. Penrod et al

08-cv-00342 C.D. Cal.
Active Initial filing stage Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

A financial entry recording an in forma pauperis (IFP) filing fee was made in Wagner et al v. Penrod et al, Central District of California docket 08-cv-00342. This reflects payment or waiver status related to court fees.

Latest development

5:08-cv-00342 Jesse Wagner et al v. Gary Penrod et al

Filing · May 11, 2026

The plaintiffs in Jesse Wagner et al v. Gary Penrod et al filed a financial entry regarding the in forma pauperis (IFP) filing fee. This means the court recorded the payment status or waiver of the filing fee for this case. It matters because it confirms whether the plaintiffs have met the court's financial requirements to proceed without paying standard fees.

description View filing

Key Issues

  • IFP filing fee
  • Financial entry
  • Fee waiver
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
fact_check

Docket Snapshot

account_balance

Court

C.D. Cal.

Central District of California · 9th Circuit · CA

tag

Docket

Not captured

Civil

timeline

Stage

Initial filing stage

Active

event

Filed

Date unavailable

Not in the available feed

new_releases

Latest Filing

5:08-cv-00342 Jesse Wagner et al v. Gary Penrod et al

Filing · May 11, 2026

newspaper

Coverage

0 articles

0 sources tracked

groups

Participants

1 Defendant, 1 Plaintiff

2 linked entities

gavel

Judge

Not assigned in feed

What the record shows

This case is tied to Central District of California, a federal district court in CA.

The newest docket activity we have is a filing dated May 11, 2026.

The visible party/entity graph currently includes Gary Penrod, 5:08-cv-00342 Jesse Wagner.

No independent press coverage is attached yet; this page is currently docket-led rather than media-led.

chronic

The Story So Far

Updated 14 hours, 41 minutes ago

Jesse Wagner and other plaintiffs filed suit against Gary Penrod and additional defendants in the Central District of California under docket number 08-cv-00342. The case remains active but has not yet been assigned to a judge.

The plaintiffs recently submitted a financial entry related to the in forma pauperis (IFP) filing fee, indicating their request to proceed without prepaying court fees due to financial hardship. This filing signals the plaintiffs' intent to move forward despite limited resources.

The court has not issued any rulings or set a schedule, leaving the procedural posture in its early stages. The absence of a judge assignment suggests the case is still in initial processing, with no substantive motions or discovery underway.

The key issues remain unclear from the docket, but the IFP filing fee status is a necessary administrative step before the case can progress. The parties have not publicly disclosed the nature of the dispute or claims involved.

The next developments will likely focus on the court's decision regarding the IFP request and the formal assignment of a judge to manage the case.

smart_toy Juryvine case narrative generated from the full docket timeline. How we verify our work.

update What Changed This Week

1 event

Juryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.

About This Court

Central District of California (C.D. Cal.) is a federal district court in the 9th Circuit, CA.

Advertisement

Case Timeline

1 event
description
Filing May 11, 2026

5:08-cv-00342 Jesse Wagner et al v. Gary Penrod et al

The plaintiffs in Jesse Wagner et al v. Gary Penrod et al filed a financial entry regarding the in forma pauperis (IFP) filing fee. This means the court recorded the payment status or waiver of the filing fee for this case. It matters because it confirms whether the plaintiffs have met the court's financial requirements to proceed without paying standard fees.

Advertisement
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

0 outlets · 0 articles

Timeline events

1 record on file

Last updated

7 hours, 13 minutes ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.