Winfield v. Adams et al

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/28/14 DENYING 21 Motion to Amend the Complaint ; This action is dismissed for plaintiffs failure to submit the filing fee in full. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAUL WINFIELD,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-1370 AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

JACOB ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

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. Plaintiff has

19

consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. ECF No. 10.

20

By Order filed on March 20, 2014, plaintiff was determined to be barred from proceeding

21

in forma pauperis in this action by the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ECF No.

22

20. Plaintiff was granted thirty days to submit the $350.00 filing fee and was cautioned that

23

failure to do so timely would result in dismissal of this action. Id. Plaintiff has failed to submit

24

the filing fee and the time for doing so has expired. Plaintiff’s only response has been to file a

25

document that has been construed as a motion for leave to amend. ECF No. 21. The putative

26

motion indicates that plaintiff wishes to add seven defendants, but contains no facts regarding the

27

actions of the seven individuals and is not accompanied by any proposed amended pleading.

28

Given the status of the case, a motion to amend cannot be entertained.
1

1

Moreover, the court notes that since plaintiff was ordered to show cause why he should

2

not be barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he has filed repeated notices regarding potential

3

additional defendants. ECF Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. None of these “notices” contain

4

sufficient information that they can reasonably be construed as motions to amend, and none of

5

them address the only matter at issue at this stage: whether plaintiff may proceed at all in light of

6

his prior strikes. The court has already concluded that he may not unless the filing fee is paid in

7

full. Because plaintiff has failed to do so within the time provided, his would-be motion will be

8

denied and this action will be dismissed.

9

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

10

1. Plaintiff’s “motion to amend” (ECF No. 21) is denied; and

11

2. This action is dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to submit the filing fee in full.

12

DATED: April 28, 2014

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