Seefeldt v. Mercy Hospital (Bakersfield) et al
ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Failure to File Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis or Pay Filing Fee signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/08/2010. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)
(PC) Seefeldt v. Mercy Hospital (Bakersfield) et al
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 / 13 14 Plaintiff Brian Scott Seefeldt, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this 15 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the Magistrate 16 Judge handling all matters in this action. (ECF No. 4.) 17 On July 14, 2010, the Court noted that Plaintiff had been released from prison 18 before he was granted in forma pauperis status. (ECF No. 19.) The Court ordered Plaintiff 19 to complete the non-prisoner IFP form and return it to the Court by August 25, 2010. 20 Plaintiff was warned that failure to obey the Court's order could result in his case being 21 dismissed for failure to prosecute. 22 On September 10, 2010, noting that Plaintiff failed to meet its deadline, the Court 23 ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for failure to 24 submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 20.) 25 Plaintiff was ordered to respond not later than October 1, 2010 and was warned that failure 26 to do so would result in dismissal of this action. 27 To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff 28 v. MERCY HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants. BRIAN SCOTT SEEFELDT, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-235-MJS (PC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO FILE APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS OR PAY FILING FEE (ECF No. 20) CLERK TO ENTER JUDGMENT
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
has also failed to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. A civil action may not proceed absent the submission of either the filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Because Plaintiff has submitted neither, and has not responded to the Court's repeated orders that he do so, it is within the Court's discretion to dismiss the case. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006); Local Rule 11-110. Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and Local Rule 11-110.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ci4d6 October 8, 2010 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Michael J. Seng
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?