Hurt v. 50 States and the City of Washington et al

Filing 26

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Hon. William Alsup denying 25 Motion for Leave to File.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/3/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 TYRONE HURT, 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 50 States and the City of Washington, All State Legislatures of the 50 States, and U.S. Department of Justice, Defendants. / 14 15 No. C 12-02728 WHA Pro se plaintiff Tyrone Hurt’s hand-written complaint was dismissed in part because it 16 was largely illegible. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was thus denied, 17 “without prejudice to refiling once plaintiff has submitted a complaint that is legible” (Dkt. No. 18 11). Rather than file a legible complaint, however, plaintiff appealed the order denying him 19 leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The appeal was dismissed as untimely. Plaintiff then filed a 20 letter, addressed to the Clerk, requesting that the complaint be forwarded back to him “to be 21 made legible.” By order dated December 10, plaintiff was warned that such communications to 22 the Court were improper. The letter was construed as a request to file an amended complaint. 23 Plaintiff was warned that failure to file a cognizable legal claim by January 2, 2013, would result 24 in dismissal of this action with prejudice. 25 Plaintiff has filed a hand-written motion entitled “amendment to the complaint.” The 26 document states that plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint but does not state a single 27 claim for relief. Nor are there any relevant facts alleged under the section heading “statement of 28 the facts of the case.” Plaintiff’s motion is essentially limited to a statement that plaintiff moves to amend the complaint and an “affidavit of poverty” to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s 1 motion for leave to amend the complaint is denied, as plaintiff has not stated a single claim for 2 relief. Plaintiff was clearly warned that any proposed amendment must state a cognizable claim 3 for relief. He has failed to do so. Plaintiff’s frivolous motion to file an amended complaint is 4 DENIED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 5 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Plaintiff’s “affidavit” does not 6 include sufficient detail regarding plaintiff’s ability to pay. Plaintiff’s conclusory statement that 7 “because of [his] poverty,” he cannot pay the filing fee and that he believes he is entitled to the 8 relief he seeks is insufficient. 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 3, 2013. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?