Mitchell v. Snowden et al

Filing 129

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/08/15 denying as unnecessary 128 Motion to refile this action. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL J. MITCHELL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:08-cv-1658 JAM DAD P

ORDER

SNOWDEN et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On February 21, 2013, the undersigned

18

issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed due to

19

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and his failure to comply with court orders. On April 25, 2013, the

20

assigned district judge adopted the findings and recommendations in full and dismissed this

21

action without prejudice. The court entered judgment on the same day. Plaintiff appealed, and

22

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.

23

Plaintiff has now filed a motion to re-file this action. The court will deny plaintiff’s

24

motion as unnecessary. Plaintiff is advised that if he wishes bring a new cause of action based on

25

his complaint in this action he does not need an order from this court granting him leave to do so.

26

Plaintiff must file a new complaint as required by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

27

and he must either pay the required filing fee or file a new completed application requesting leave

28

to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). Plaintiff should not list the
1

1

case number for this cause of action on his new complaint form or his new application to proceed

2

in forma pauperis because this case is closed. This court will not issue any further orders in

3

response to future filings in this action.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to re-file this action

5

(Doc. No. 128) is denied as unnecessary.

6

Dated: October 8, 2015

7
8
9

DAD:9
mitc1658.new

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2