Partida v. Liu et al.

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 10/5/2017 DENYING as Moot 9 Application to Proceed IFP and GRANTING 12 Request for Status to the extent this order address the procedural posture of the case and is otherwise denied. Plaintiff is advised that any further documents filed in this case will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings. (Hunt, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GUSTAVO PARTIDA,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-2630 AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

ALEXANDER LIU, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

This civil rights action was closed on February 10, 2017, after plaintiff failed to respond to

18

two orders directing him to either pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma

19

pauperis. ECF Nos. 6, 7. Plaintiff has now filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis as well as

20

a request for status and copies. ECF Nos. 9, 12. In his request for a status report, he states that he

21

submitted the filing fee on August 17, 2017. ECF No. 12. However, this court’s records and

22

other documents submitted by plaintiff demonstrate that he paid the filing fee in Partida v. Liu

23

(Partida II), 2:17-cv-0694 WBS KJN, not this case. ECF No. 8. It appears that approximately a

24

month after the complaint in this case was dismissed without prejudice, plaintiff initiated Partida

25

II in order to pursue the claims originally raised in this action. Partida II at ECF No. 1. Shortly

26

before plaintiff paid the filing fee in Partida II, the case was dismissed because plaintiff failed to

27

comply with court orders to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma

28

pauperis. Partida II at ECF Nos. 8, 11.
1

1

The instant case had been closed for nearly seven months before plaintiff made any

2

attempt at communication with the court, and during that time he instead initiated a new lawsuit

3

pursuing the same claims. Particularly given the existence of a more recently filed case in which

4

plaintiff paid the filing fee (though belatedly so), the court finds no reason to re-open this case.

5

This order shall not act as a bar to plaintiff seeking to re-open Partida II.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9) is denied as moot.

8

2. Plaintiff’s request for status (ECF No. 12) is granted to the extent this order address the

9
10

procedural posture of the case and is otherwise denied.
3. Plaintiff is advised that any further documents filed in this case will be disregarded and

11

no orders will issue in response to future filings.

12

DATED: October 5, 2017

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