Webb v. GSF Properties et al

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/14/2017. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 TRACY WEBB, Plaintiff, 6 7 8 Case No. 1:17-cv-00361-LJO-SAB ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. GSF PROPERTIES, et al., Defendants. 9 10 On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in this action against 11 GSF Properties, Lindsey Burrow, the Fresno Police Department, and the Fresno Sheriff’s 12 Department. Along with the complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed without 13 prepayment of fees. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 14 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 15 On March 15, 2017, the magistrate judge issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s 16 application to proceed without prepayment of fees was not adequately completed. In her 17 application, Plaintiff indicated that she received income from employment and Social Security 18 benefits but did not indicate the amount received. (Application to Proceed Without Prepayment 19 of Fees 1, ECF No. 2.) Additionally, in response to the question of whether she owned anything 20 of value, Plaintiff responded that she would explain upon request. (Id. at 2.) The magistrate 21 judge found that the information provided on the form was not sufficient to determine if Plaintiff 22 was entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees. (Order Requiring Pl. to File Long Form 23 Appl. To Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees 1, ECF No. 3.) The order required Plaintiff to 24 complete and file a long form application to proceed without prepayment of fees. (Id.) Plaintiff 25 was advised that she must adequately answer the questions on the form and if she was unwilling 26 to complete the form, Plaintiff must pay the filing fee in full. (Id. at 2-3.) 27 On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a long form application to proceed without 28 1 1 prepayment of fees. (Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 2 (Long Form), ECF No. 4.) Upon review of the application, the magistrate judge found that 3 Plaintiff had again not adequately completed the form. (Findings and Recommendations 4 Recommending Denying Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees 2, ECF 5 No. 5.) Specifically, in response to the question asking the average income received in the prior 6 twelve months, Plaintiff indicated that it “depends.” Also, despite indicating that she received 7 Social Security benefits in her prior application, Plaintiff did not include any amount for 8 retirement or disability income. (Id. at 2.) The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff had not 9 demonstrated that she was entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees and recommended 10 denying Plaintiff’s application. (Id. at 2.) On May 4, 2017, this Court adopted the findings and 11 recommendations and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within thirty days. (ECF No. 8.) 12 On May 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a third application to proceed without prepayment of 13 fees and several notes to the Court. (ECF No. 9.) On May 24, 2017, the Court issued an order 14 construing Plaintiff’s application as a request for reconsideration and permitting Plaintiff 15 fourteen (14) days to either pay the $400.00 filing fee or file a revised, long-form application to 16 proceed without prepayment of fees. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff was specifically warned that if she 17 did not comply with the May 24, 2017 Order, her case would be dismissed. (Id.) The deadline 18 has expired without any response from Plaintiff. Therefore, dismissal without prejudice is 19 appropriate. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 20 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT 22 PREJUDICE. 23 24 25 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ June 14, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?