Carroll v. Price

Filing 7

ORDER Granting 6 Motion to Proceed IFP as a Non-Prisoner; ORDER Denying 2 Motion to Proceed IFP as a Prisoner as Moot signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/20/2017. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD J. CARROLL, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. BRANDON PRICE, Defendant. Case No. 1:17-cv-01312-BAM (PC) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS A NON-PRISONER (ECF No. 6) 16 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS A PRISONER AS MOOT 17 (ECF No. 2) 18 19 Plaintiff Ronald J. Carroll (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee appearing pro se in this civil 20 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare 21 and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning 22 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). 23 Plaintiff initiated this action on October 2, 2017. That same day, Plaintiff submitted an 24 application to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner. (ECF No. 2.) On October 4, 2017, the 25 Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to either pay the $400.00 filing fee or submit an 26 application to proceed in forma pauperis on the appropriate form. (ECF No. 4.) Currently before 27 the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as a non-prisoner, filed October 19, 28 2017. (ECF No. 6.) 1 1 Examination of these documents reveals that Plaintiff is unable to afford the costs of this 2 action. Accordingly, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis as a non-prisoner, (ECF No. 6) is 3 GRANTED. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner, (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as 4 moot. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara October 20, 2017 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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?