Forte v. Merced County, et al.

Filing 6

ORDER DENYING 4 leave to file electronically without prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/18/2015. (Rosales, O)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EUGENE E. FORTE,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-0147 -----BAM
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE
ELECTRONICALLY WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

v.
MERCED COUNTY, ERIC DUMARS,
MERCED COUNTY PUBLIC
DEFENDERS OFFICE, JERRY
O’BANION, MERCED COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS, CHRIS JASKOWIAK,
CHRIS PICINICH, MIKE HILL, ADAM
LEUCHNER, HERMAN PROCK,
GEOFFREY ROGERS, DAVID SCOTT,
JAMES PADRON, ANTHONY PARKER,
LARRY MORSE, ALAN TURNER,
MERCED COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, MERCED
COUNTY COUNSEL’S OFFICE, JAMES
FINCHER, ROGER MATZKIND,
MERCED COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE, MERCED COUNTY DEFENSE
ASSOCATION, CINDY MORSE,
THOMAS PFEIFF, DAVE CAPRON, JEFF
BERGER, DR. RICHARD A. BLAK,
THOMAS CAVALERRO, CITY OF LOS
BANOS, STEVE RATH, GARY BRIZZEE,
CONNIE McGHEE, CENTRAL SAN
JOAQUIN VALLEY RISK
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, RAYMA
CHURCH, RYAN LIBKE, JAMES
WEAKLEY, BRANDE GUSTAFSON,
LOUIS LEONE, CLAUDIA LEED,
GREGARY DE LA PENA, STEVEN
ROYCRAFT, BENJAMIN RATCLIFF,
WILLIAM LAPCEVICH, HYATT
SUMMERFIELD SUITES, ANA VILLA,
PLEASANTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
JERRY NICELEY, MARDENE LASHLEY,
OFFICER MARTENS, TOMMY JONES,
GREGORY CHAPPEL, BARBARA
O’NEILL, FRANK DOUGHERTY, JAMES
CADLE, MERCED SUPERIOR COURT,
LARRY COMBS, KEN WILDERSON, JOE
SOUSA, MANUAL FARIA, MICHAEL

1

1

VILLALTA,
Defendants.

2
3
4
5
6
7

Plaintiff Eugene Forte (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

8

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 and various state law related claims.

9

On February 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request to file documents electronically in the Court’s CM/ECF

10

system.

11

Contemporaneously filed with this order, the Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and

12

finds that the complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. The complaint has been dismissed with leave

13

to amend. Until such time as Plaintiff files an amended complaint and that complaint is found to state

14

a cognizable claim pursuant to screening standards, Plaintiff will be denied electronic filing status.

15

Accordingly, the request to file electronically is DENIED without prejudice.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

June 18, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2