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)

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