ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Vaughn R Walker on 7/22/2010. (Attachments: # 1 proof of service)(cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2010)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On June 10, 2010, plaintiff, a prisoner presently incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison and frequent litigant in both state and federal court, filed a letter with the court. #1. Doc JOHN DOE, Defendant(s). / v DONALD RAY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL No C-10-2566 VRW (PR) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
The court clerk notified plaintiff in writing at that time that
because he neither filed a formal civil rights complaint under 42 USC § 1983 using the court-approved form nor did he pay the requisite $ 350.00 filing fee or, instead, submit a signed and completed court-approved in forma pauperis application, including a completed certificate of funds in his prison account and a copy of his prison trust account statement for the last six months obtained from the appropriate prison official, the action was deficient. See
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
28 USC § 1915(a)(2).
Plaintiff was advised that failure to file the
requested items within thirty (30) days would result in dismissal of the action. Doc ## 2 & 3.
Over forty days have elapsed since plaintiff was notified of his filing deficiencies; however, he has neither provided the court with the requisite items nor filed a request for an extension of time to do so. prejudice. The clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions as moot and close the file. The action, therefore, is DISMISSED without
IT IS SO ORDERED.
VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge
G:\PRO-SE\VRW\CR.10\Williams-10-2566-no complaint-no ifp-dismissal.wpd
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?