Forte v. Hughes et al

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING plaintiff's Motion to Revoke His Prior Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, document 24 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 7/30/2014. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

EUGENE E. FORTE,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Case No. 1:13-cv-01980-LJO-SMS
Plaintiff,

v.
PATTERSON POLICE SERVICES/
STANISLAUS COUNTY DEPUTY
CHIEF TORI HUGHES, STANISLAUS
COUNTY DEPUTY CHRIS SCHWARTZ,
and STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF
ADAM CHRISTIANSON, in their public
and individual capacity; PATTERSON
POLICE SERVICES; PATTERSON
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT;
CITY OF PATTERSON; PATTERSON
POLICE SERVICES, et al., and DOES 1100,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST TO REVOKE HIS
PRIOR REQUEST TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Doc. 24
Defendants.

20
21

22
23
24

In a transparent attempt to circumvent the screening of his first amended complaint that
resulted in the dismissal of multiple uncognizable claims and certain defendants from this action,
Plaintiff Eugene Forte moves to revoke his in forma pauperis status and to pay the filing fee in a
series of installments. Plaintiff claims that he "does not want to deplete the court's judicial

25
26
27

resources." In light of Plaintiff's repeated disrespectful rhetoric in this matter, the Court finds
Plaintiff's stated reason for revoking his request to proceed in forma pauperis to be not credible. In

28
1

1

fact, the Court finds Plaintiff's motion to be manipulative and a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent

2

the Court's "inherent power to control its docket and the disposition of its cases with economy of

3

time and effort for both the court and the parties." See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S.

4

248, 254-55 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992).

5
6
7

AFlagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to
preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of
other litigants.@ DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff is

8
9

admonished that any further attempts to circumvent the Court's authority shall result in an order to

10

show cause why sanctions should not be imposed pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 11. "By presenting to the

11

court a pleading, written motion, or paper . . . . [an] unrepresented party certifies to the best of the

12

person's knowledge, information, and belief . . . . (1) it is not being presented for any improper

13
14

purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation."
F.R.Civ.P. 11(b). Violators of F.R.Civ.P. 11(b) are subject to monetary and nonmonetary

15
16
17
18

sanctions. F.R.Civ.P. 11(c).
Plaintiff's motion to revoke the Court's prior order granting his request to proceed without
payment of the filing fee for this case (in forma pauperis) is HEREBY DENIED.

19
20
21

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 30, 2014

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2