Brandstatt v. California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility, et al.

Filing 9

ORDER Regarding Motion at Docket No. 8 , signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 7/9/13: The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to re-serve the Order entered at Docket No. 3 on Plaintiff together with this Order; Deadline for Plaintiff to comply with Court Order set for August 29, 2013. (Hellings, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WILLIAM HUBERT LLOYD
BRANDSTATT,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00434-RRB
ORDER REGARDING
MOTION AT DOCKET NO. 8

vs.
DR. ANTHONY ENENMOH, C.M.O, et
al.,
Defendants.

At Docket No. 8 Plaintiff William Hubert Lloyd Brandstatt, a state prisoner appearing
pro se, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in response to the Court’s June 13,
2013, Order.1 Attached to Brandstatt’s motion is an Inmate/Parolee Request for an
Interview Item or Service (CDCR 22) dated April 12, 2012, and an Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis by a Prisoner dated March 3, 2013.2 The Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis has an annotation on the last page: “A certified trust account state[ment]
was sent to this Court on 2-19-13.” The records of this Court do not reflect receipt of a trust
account statement.3

1

Docket 7.

2

The Court’s Records do not show that either document was previously filed
with the Court.
3

Indeed, even if the statement were sent to the Court, it could not have been
processed in this case. The Complaint initiating this action is dated March 20, 2013, and
ORDER
Brandstatt v. Enemoh, 1:13-cv-00434-RRB - 1

Although Brandstatt has utilized the proper form, he has not complied with the
requirement that he submit a certified copy of his prison trust account statement.
Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis at
Docket No. 8 is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before August 29, 2013, Plaintiff must
comply with the Order dated April 1, 2013, and attach thereto a Certified Copy of his prison
trust account statement for the six (6) months preceding the date the Complaint was filed.
Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of the Complaint.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-serve the Order entered at Docket No. 3 on
Plaintiff together with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of July, 2013.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

date stamped as filed on March 30, 2013, more than a month after Brandstatt contends the
trust account statement was sent to the Court and nearly two months before Brandstatt
submitted his CDCR 22.
ORDER
Brandstatt v. Enemoh, 1:13-cv-00434-RRB - 2