Jo v. Six Unknown Names Agents et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING Action signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/16/2013. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

YOUNG YIL JO,

12

Case No. 1:13-cv-01729 LJO DLB PC

Plaintiff,
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

13

v.

14

SIX UNKNOWN AGENTS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Young Yil Jo is a former federal prisoner currently housed at the Etowah County

17
18

Jail in Gadsden, Alabama. On October 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed what was construed as a civil rights

19

complaint.1 The complaint was not signed, and Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or submit an

20

application to proceed in forma pauperis.

21

On November 5, 2013, the Court issued an order striking the complaint. Plaintiff was

22

ordered to file a signed complaint and either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay

23

the filing fee, within thirty (30) days. Over thirty (30) days have passed and Plaintiff has not

24

complied with the Court’s order. Plaintiff was warned that dismissal would occur if he failed to

25

obey the order.
On November 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. However, the Court’s November 5,

26
27
1

28

Plaintiff references the name “Yuri Tzul” in the caption and body of the complaint. However, the complaint arrived in
an envelope with Plaintiff’s name and return address. The complaint was not signed and the Court was not provided
with any contact information for “Yuri Tzul.”

1

1

2013, order was not immediately appealable. “When a Notice of Appeal is defective in that it refers

2

to a non-appealable interlocutory order, it does not transfer jurisdiction to the appellate court, and so

3

the ordinary rule that the district court cannot act until the mandate has issued on the appeal does not

4

apply.” Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2007).

5

A civil action may not proceed absent the submission of a signed complaint and either the

6

filing fee or a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915; Fed. R.

7

Civ. P. 3, 11(a). Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order, dismissal of this

8

action is appropriate. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d

9

1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006); Local Rule 110.

10
11

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS this action dismissed, without prejudice, for
failure to prosecute.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

December 16, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2