Pak v. Six Unknown Names Agents Or Mr. President Of The United States Barack Obama

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, Without Prejudice, for Failure to Obey Court Order, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/24/2012. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
JAE JUNE PAK,

1:12-cv-00301-LJO-SKO (PC)

4
Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO OBEY
COURT ORDER

5
v.
6
SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS, et al.,

(Doc. 3)

7
Defendants.
8
____________________________________/
9
On March 1, 2012, Jae June Pak, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed what was construed
10
as a civil rights complaint. The complaint was not signed and it set forth no intelligible claims for relief.
11
Because the Court cannot consider unsigned filings, the complaint was stricken from the record on
12
September 28, 2011, and Plaintiff was ordered to file a signed complaint within thirty days. In addition,
13
Plaintiff was ordered to either file a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the
14
$350.00 filing fee in full within thirty days. Plaintiff has not timely complied with the Court’s order or
15

otherwise responded, and Plaintiff was warned that this action would be dismissed if he did not comply.1

16
A civil action may not proceed absent the submission of a pleading and either an application to
17
proceed in forma pauperis or the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915; Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. Because
18
Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order to submit a signed complaint and either an application
19
to proceed in forma pauperis or the filing fee, dismissal of this action is appropriate.

In re

20
Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006); Local
21
Rule 110.
22
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS this action dismissed, without prejudice, for failure
23
to obey a court order.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27

Dated:
b9ed48

April 24, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
1

The order was returned by the postal service with the notation that it had been refused. However, service on
Plaintiff at his address of record is deemed effective. Local Rule 182(f).