Burciaga v. Deputy Sheriff

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING Action, without Prejudice, for Failure to Prosecute and Comply with a Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/4/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MANUEL BURCIAGA,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
DEPUTY SHERIFF,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00186-SAB (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
AND COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER
[ECF No. 10]

Plaintiff Manuel Burciaga filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on

18

February 10, 2017. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the

19

United States Magistrate Judge on March 3, 2017. Local Rule 302.

20

Plaintiff filed the instant action on February 10, 2017. On February 15, 2017, the Court

21

ordered Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing or submit a complete application to proceed in forma

22

pauperis. (ECF No. 3.) On March 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a reply to the Court’s February 15, 2017,

23

order and requested that the order be discharged. (ECF No. 5.) On March 9, 2017, the Court issued a

24

second order directing Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or submit a complete application to proceed in

25

forma pauperis. (ECF No. 6.) On April 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response and argued that he satisfied

26

the filing fee under House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192 which involved the suspension of the gold

27

standard. (ECF No. 9.) On April 6, 2017, the Court issued a third and final order directing Plaintiff to

28

pay the filing fee or submit a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis within twenty-one
1

1

days. (ECF No. 10.) Over twenty-one days has passed, and Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s

2

April 6, 2017, order. A civil action may not proceed absent the submission of either the filing fee or a

3

completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Based on Plaintiff’s

4

failure to comply with the Court’s order, dismissal of this action is appropriate. In re

5

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006); Local

6

Rule 110. Accordingly, this action is dismissed, without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court shall

7

terminate this action.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:

12

May 4, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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