Ahmad Raheem Price v. K. Clifton et al

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Josephine L. Staton, IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice. re Complaint (Prisoner Civil Rights) #1 , Order on Motion for Order #6 , Minutes of In Chambers Order #8 . [See document for details.] (es)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AHMAD RAHEEM PRICE,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
K. CLIFTON, et al.,

Case No. 2:21-cv-06884-JLS (GJS)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Defendants.

16
17
18

On August 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

19

[Dkt. 1]. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee for this action, nor did he submit a

20

request to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Instead, with his

21

Complaint, Plaintiff submitted a document in which he claimed to be “exempt” from

22

owing any fees, taxes, fines, and debts and, citing the Uniform Commercial Code

23

and a 1933 House Joint Resolution, stated that he would “allow” the “use of [his]

24

exemption” to be exchanged to discharge the filing fee for this case. [See Dkt. 2.]

25

On August 27, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish issued

26

two Orders. In one, she advised Plaintiff that the Complaint is subject to the Court’s

27

screening obligations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1), that

28

the Complaint was in the process of being screened, and that he was not permitted to

1

proceed with process until screening was concluded. [Dkt. 5.] In the other, she

2

addressed Plaintiff’s contention that he is exempt from paying the filing fee and

3

advised him as follows:

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff’s assertion that he is exempt from paying
the filing fee is contrary to law. As a prisoner within the
meaning of the PLRA, Plaintiff may either pay the filing
fee or request leave to proceed without prepayment of the
full filing fee by demonstrating his indigency and
complying with all of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a). Even if he is granted such leave, however,
Plaintiff still is required to pay the full filing fee over
time. Plaintiff is not exempt from paying the filing fee if
he wishes to pursue this case, and his assertion otherwise
is frivolous. . . .
If Plaintiff wishes for this action to proceed, he
must either pay the full filing fee or submit a Form CV60P Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing
Fees With Declaration in Support Thereof, along with the
certified trust fund account statement required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Plaintiff must do so by no later than
September 22, 2021. If Plaintiff does not do so, the
Court will recommend that this action be dismissed
without prejudice.

17

Judge Standish also directed the Clerk’s Office to send Plaintiff Form CV-60P,

18

which occurred. [Dkt. 6, the “August 27 Order.”]

19

On September 10, 2021, the Clerk’s Office received a document from

20

Plaintiff, which was docketed on September 17, 2021. [Dkt. 7, “Notice.”] The

21

Notice advised of Plaintiff’s change of address and his concern that he might not

22

have signed the Complaint. On September 24, 2021, Judge Standish issued an

23

Order in response, in which she stated:

24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is advised that, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P.
11(a), he failed to sign the Complaint filed on August 23,
2021 [Dkt. 1], as well as the two other documents he
filed on that date [Dkts. 2-3].
Given the timing of the Notice, the Court questions
whether Plaintiff has received the Court’s Orders of
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

August 27, 2021 [Dkts. 5-6], which denied Dockets 2 and
3. The Court’s two Orders were mailed to Plaintiff’s
then current docket address of record, and it appears that
Plaintiff may have been in transit shortly thereafter.
Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to attach to this
Order copies of the Complaint [Dkt. 1] and the Court’s
August 27, 2021 Orders [Dkts. 5-6]. The Court sua
sponte extends Plaintiff’s deadline for compliance
imposed by Docket 6 to October 13, 2021. By that same
deadline, Plaintiff must submit a signed signature page
for his Complaint if he wishes this action to proceed. As
before, the failure to comply with Docket 6 and this
Order may result in the dismissal of this action.
[Dkt. 8, “September 24 Order.”]
The October 13, 2021 deadline passed over a month ago, and Plaintiff has

11

neither complied with Judge Standish’s August 27 Order and September 24 Order

12

nor otherwise communicated with the Court. The Complaint remains unsigned, in

13

violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a), and Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor

14

submitted a request to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and all related,

15

required documents under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). As a result, this case remains

16

stalled and cannot proceed.

17

Both the August 27 Order and the September 24 Order warned Plaintiff that

18

this case would be dismissed if he did not take the steps ordered, which must occur

19

for this case to move forward. He has had ample time to do so and ample warning,

20

yet he has failed to take any action. The Court, therefore, assumes that Plaintiff no

21

longer wishes to pursue this case and that this action may be dismissed.

22

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

DATED: November 16, 2021

JOSEPHINE L. STATON
_______________________________
JOSEPHINE L. STATON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

1

Presented by:

2
3
4

_______________________________
GAIL J. STANDISH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4