Elijah Lee Miller v. D. Waters et al

Filing 26

ORDER OF DISMISSAL CASE by Judge James V. Selna. To date, Plaintiff has neither submitted the $400 filing fee nor an amended request to proceed in forma pauperis. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this lawsuit is DISMISSED without prejudice. No further filings shall be accepted under this case number. (See document for details.) (es)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ELIJAH LEE MILLER,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 5:19-cv-02126-JVS (MAA)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

D. WATERS et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On November 6, 2019, Plaintiff Elijah Lee Miller (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro se

18

civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) However,

19

Plaintiff neither paid the required $400 filing fee, nor filed an application to proceed

20

in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (See ECF No. 2.) On November 7,

21

2019, the Court issued an Order advising that failure to correct this deficiency within

22

thirty days would result in dismissal of the case. (Order, ECF No. 4.)

23

On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document that the Court construed

24

as a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Request”). (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff

25

filed an uncertified copy of his trust account on November 21, 2019. (ECF No. 6.)

26

On December 4, 2019, the Court denied the IFP Request due to Plaintiff’s failure to

27

authorize disbursements from his prison trust account to pay the filing fees, and

28

failure to provide a certified copy of his trust fund statement for the last six months.

1

(ECF No. 8.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to re-submit an amended IFP

2

Request within thirty days. (Id.)
In the absence of an amended IFP Request, on January 17, 2020 the Court

3
4

issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 14.)

5

On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second IFP Request (ECF No. 16) and “Motion

6

for an Extension of Time Ordered to Show Cause” (“Motion”) (ECF No. 17). On

7

March 4, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion and accepted the late

8

submission of the second IFP Request. (ECF No. 20.) On March 9, 2020, the

9

Court denied the second IFP Request due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide a certified

10

copy of his trust fund statement for the last six months. (ECF No. 21.) The Court

11

granted Plaintiff leave to re-submit an amended IFP Request within thirty days.

12

(Id.)

13

In the absence of an amended IFP Request, on May 26, 2020 the Court issued

14

an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 23.) On

15

June 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a third IFP Request. (ECF No. 24.) On June 26,

16

2020, the Court denied the third IFP Request due to Plaintiff’s failure to authorize

17

disbursements from his prison trust account to pay the filing fees and failure to

18

provide a certified copy of his trust fund statement for the last six months. (ECF

19

No. 25.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to re-submit an amended IFP Request

20

within thirty days. (Id.)

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4

To date, Plaintiff has neither submitted the $400 filing fee nor an amended
request to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this lawsuit is DISMISSED without
prejudice. No further filings shall be accepted under this case number.

5
6
7
8

DATED: September 10, 2020

9

____________________________________
JAMES V. SELNA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11

Presented by:

12
13
14

_______________________________
MARIA A. AUDERO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3