Spitters v. Unknown

Filing 18

AMENDED FURTHER ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 1/6/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 THOMAS H. SPITTERS, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 15-cv-04902-JSC AMENDED FURTHER ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION v. UNKNOWN, Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiff Thomas H. Spitters, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action against unknown 14 defendant(s) on October 23, 2015. His complaint was accompanied by an in forma pauperis 15 application. (Dkt. No. 2.) Because the application was incomplete, the Court denied it without 16 prejudice to re-filing a completed in forma pauperis application, a copy of which was attached to 17 the Court’s Order. (Dkt. No. 4.) The Court also sent Plaintiff a copy of the form for consenting or 18 declining to consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. (Dkt. No. 6.) Subsequently, Plaintiff 19 filed a series of documents requesting acknowledgment of his filings, listing names of individuals, 20 asking questions regarding the paperwork that was mailed to him, requesting original signatures in 21 lieu of facsimile signatures on documents sent by the Court, and returning copies of the paperwork 22 sent by the Court including the blank in forma pauperis application and the consent or declination 23 form. On December 1, 2015, the Court issued an Order addressing these filings and giving 24 Plaintiff until December 21, 2015 to file a complete in forma pauperis application. 25 To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order or otherwise communicated with 26 the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be given one final opportunity—until January 19, 2016— 27 to submit a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. Failure to do 28 so by January 18 may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. 1 2 Civ. Pro. 41(b). Plaintiff is reminded that because this action has been randomly assigned to the 3 undersigned magistrate judge, by statute Plaintiff must affirmatively consent to the jurisdiction of 4 a magistrate judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff may either consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate 5 judge or decline to consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Plaintiff may withhold his 6 consent without substantive adverse consequences, but he must either decline or consent by 7 completing the attached consent form. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: January 6, 2016 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 12 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?