Bridgeman v. Hashemi

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/12/17. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL DAYNE BRIDGEMAN,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:16-cv-01399-DAD-MJS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION

NASTRAN HASHEMI, M.D.,

(Doc. No. 10)

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 5, 2017, the undersigned adopted the assigned magistrate judge’s

19

findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

20

pauperis be denied and that plaintiff be directed to pay the required $400 filing fee in connection

21

with this action within fourteen days of the service of that order. (Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff was

22

also informed in the order that his failure to pay the filing fee or otherwise respond to the order

23

will result in a dismissal of this action. (Id.)

24

That fourteen-day period has long since passed, and plaintiff has failed to pay the required

25

$400 filing fee. Instead, on April 26, 2017 and again on July 20, 2017, plaintiff filed notices with

26

the court representing that he is indigent and unable to pay the filing fee in connection with this

27

action. (Doc. Nos. 11 and 12.) However, as noted, this court previously denied plaintiff’s

28

application to proceed in forma pauperis based upon the determination that plaintiff had incurred
1

1

three or more dismissals of actions he had filed which qualified as strikes under 28 U.S.C. §

2

1915(g) and that plaintiff had failed to make any specific, credible allegations in support of the

3

application of the imminent danger exception under that provision. (Doc. Nos. 8 and 10.)

4

Nothing in the notices subsequently filed by plaintiff call into question the court’s prior order.

5

For the reasons set forth above:

6

1.

7
8
9
10

This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to submit the necessary filing
fees; and

2.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 12, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2