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).
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?