Sophia Lopez v. Johnson et al

Filing 9

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the 1 Complaint be DISMISSED, With Prejudice, for Failure to Comply With the Court's Order to Pay the Filing Fee, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/4/2010. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 3/22/2010. (Jessen, A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 v. 14 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MARTHA JOHNSON, and RENEE RICHARDSON, SOPHIA LOPEZ, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-cv-02174 LJO JLT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On December 15, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc 3] The motion was not complete and not signed under penalty of perjury. On December 31, 2009, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis and warned Plaintiff that her failure to comply with the order may result in a recommendation to dismiss the action.. [Doc 5] On January 7, 2010, Plaintiff again filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc 6] Although this motion contained some additional information but still was not complete and, once again, it was not signed under penalty of perjury. Finally, on January 11, 2010, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended affidavit to support her request to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc #7] In its order, the Court admonished Plaintiff that her failure to comply could result in denial of her motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. Plaintiff did not respond. 1

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

On January 29, 2010, the Court denied the Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice based upon her failure to file a complete, signed motion. The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or, in the alternative, to file a new application to proceed in forma pauperis that was signed and contained the information required by the Court's order dated January 11, 2010. (Doc. 8) The Court granted Plaitniff 30 days in which to pay the filing fee or to file the new motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court warned plaintiff that her failure to comply with the Court's order would result a recommendation that the action be dismissed. Once again, Plaintiff did not respond. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has abandoned her lawsuit. RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends, 1. That the complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to comply with the Court's order to pay the filing fee. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Judge's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 4, 2010 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2