(PC) Moten v. Cisneros et al

Filing 8

ORDER disregarding Plaintiff's Response to Showing of Cause Order 6 signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/25/2024. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHARROD MOTEN, 12 13 Plaintiff, v. 14 THERESA CISNEROS, et al., 15 Defendants. No. 1:24-cv-00022 GSA (PC) ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO SHOWING OF CAUSE ORDER (ECF No. 6) 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 19 4. This proceeding was referred to this Court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1)(B). 21 Before this Court is Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s January 26, 2024, order directing 22 him to file a showing of cause. ECF No. 5. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s response to 23 the showing of cause will be disregarded. 24 I. RELEVANT FACTS 25 On January 26, 2024, the Court determined that Plaintiff is likely a three strikes litigant 26 within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF No. 5. As a result, Plaintiff was ordered to 27 show cause why his application to proceed in forma pauperis should not be denied and he be 28 1 1 required to pay the filing fee.1 Id. at 7. He was given thirty days to respond to the Court’s order. 2 See id. On February 29, 2024, a document entitled “Order to Show Cause” filed by Plaintiff was 3 docketed. ECF No. 6. The Court considers it herein. 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 Although the named Defendants in the case caption of Plaintiff’s “Order to Show Cause” 6 document, and the case number in the case caption of it are correct, the document fails to address 7 the showing of cause Plaintiff was ordered to file regarding why his application to proceed in 8 forma pauperis should not be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See generally ECF No. 6. 9 Instead, Plaintiff’s fifteen-page filing appears to be a motion requesting that federal judges in 10 another district – presumably before whom Plaintiff also has pending matters – recuse themselves 11 from those cases. See generally id. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s filing will be disregarded as improperly filed. The Court 12 13 will, however, in due course consider the filing docketed on February 29, 2024, labeled “Reply to 14 Response to Order to Show Cause.” See ECF No. 7. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s order to 15 16 show cause (ECF No. 6) is DISREGARDED as unresponsive. 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 20 March 25, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 A duplicate of the order to show cause was also filed in Moten v. Cisneros, No. 1:24-cv-0043 GSA. 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?