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)
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?