Alford v. Parker et al

Filing 4

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE NOTICE OF INTENT TO PROSECUTE; DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PAY FILING FEE OR IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 11/23/09. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RICKEY LOUIS ALFORD, Plaintiff, vs. M. PARKER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 09-03309 JF (PR) ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE NOTICE OF INTENT TO PROSECUTE; DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PAY FILING FEE OR IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION On July 20, 2009, Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On the same day, the clerk of the Court sent a notification to Plaintiff that his complaint was deficient because Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or file In Forma Pauperis Application. (Docket No. 2.) The notification included the warning that the case would be dismissed if Plaintiff failed to respond within thirty days. On August 7, 2009, the Court's mail to Plaintiff was returned with the remark "Inmate Refused." (Docket No. 3.) As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court or submitted any further pleadings in this case. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court may sua Order of Dismissal P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.09\Alford03309_41b-notice.wpd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). But such a dismissal should only be ordered when the failure to comply is unreasonable. See id. A court should afford the litigant prior notice of its intention to dismiss. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 133 (9th Cir. 1987). It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this action. The Court cannot proceed with this action until Plaintiff informs the Court of his continued intent to prosecute this action. Accordingly, no later than thirty (30) days from the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file with the Court a notice of his continued intent to prosecute. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and without further notice to Plaintiff. See Malone, 833 F.2d at 133 (the district court should afford the litigant prior notice before dismissing for failure to prosecute). Plaintiff shall also pay the filing fee or file a completed in forma pauperis application no later than thirty (30) days from the date this order is filed. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action for failure to pay the filing fee. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 11/23/09 United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge Order of Dismissal P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.09\Alford03309_41b-notice.wpd 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICKEY L. ALFORD, Plaintiff, v. M. PARKER, et al., Defendants. / Case Number: CV09-03309 JF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 11/30/09 , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the That on attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Rickey Louis Alford J39242 CA State Prison-Los Angeles County PO Box 4670 Lancaster, CA 93539 Dated: 11/30/09 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

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?