(PC)Simmons v. Wuerth et al

Filing 22

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION for Failure to Pay the Required Filing Fee signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/5/2020. Plaintiff's Pending 15 Motion for Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED as having been rendered moot by the issuance of this order. CASE CLOSED. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:19-cv-01107-DAD-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
J. WUERTH, et al.,

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PAY THE REQUIRED FILIND
FEE

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff Melvin Joseph Simmons is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On April 2, 2020, the court issued an order denying plaintiff’s application to proceed in

21

forma pauperis and directing him to pay the required filing fee within twenty-one days of service

22

of that order. (Doc. No. 20.) The allotted twenty-one days have since passed, and plaintiff has

23

not paid the required filing fee. Instead, on April 27, 2020, plaintiff filed objections to the court’s

24

April 2, 2020 order, contending that he was “unjustly convicted and intentionally placed in

25

imminent danger under the FALSE LIGHT.” (Doc. No. 21 at 2.) Setting aside the confusing and

26

conclusory nature of plaintiff’s objection, the court notes that it has previously explained to

27

plaintiff that his complaint does not allege that he was in imminent danger at the time his

28

complaint in this action was filed, and that he therefore does not meet the imminent danger
1

1

exception to the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (See Doc. No 20 at 2–3.)

2

Plaintiff’s April 27, 2020 objections do not call into question the court’s conclusion in that

3

regard.1

4

Accordingly,

5

1.

6

This case is dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to pay the
required $400.00 filing fee;

7

2.

Plaintiff’s pending “MOTION for Order to Show Cause for a PRELIMINARY

8

INJUNCTION and Temporary Restraining Order” (Doc. No. 15) is denied as

9

having been rendered moot by the issuance of this order; and

10
11

3.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:

May 5, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

In his objections, plaintiff continues to argue that the court’s use of “Jr.” as part of his name is
“improper” and “reflects an inaccurate designation of the Plaintiff’s legal personality.” (Doc. No.
21 at 1.) As discussed in the April 2, 2020 order, however, the court has stopped using “Jr.” in
plaintiff’s name on the docket in this case and in the caption of any court orders. (Doc. No. 20 at
3.)
2
1