Bolton v. City of Berkeley et al

Filing 20

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 6/14/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

A. BOLTON,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-01466-HSG
ORDER DISMISSING CASE

v.
CITY OF BERKELEY, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Pro se Plaintiff A. Bolton (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on March 17, 2017. Dkt. No. 1.

14

The same day, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Dkt.

15

No. 3. On March 27, 2017, Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim denied the motion without prejudice

16

because Plaintiff failed to provide information regarding “the funds from which he receives

17

support, e.g., wages, Social Security, public assistance,” or the “source of income from which

18

[Plaintiff’s] property is maintained or from which Plaintiff is provided a living.” Id. Judge Kim

19

thus found the application incomplete and provided Plaintiff with “one additional opportunity to

20

present a revised application resolving this conflict” by April 27, 2017. Id. The case was then

21

reassigned to this Court on April 4, 2017. Dkt. No. 8.

22

On April 20, 2017, Judge Kim’s order was returned to the Court as undeliverable. Dkt.

23

No. 10. However, on April 24, 2017, the Court sent a new copy of the order to Plaintiff at his

24

request, which has not been returned. See Dkt. No. 11. Nearly two months have elapsed since

25

Plaintiff received Judge Kim’s order, and Plaintiff has failed to file any additional paperwork

26

supporting his IFP application. The action is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice

27

for failure to pay the filing fee or to submit a complete IFP application. Plaintiff may file a new

28

action, but should include a filing fee or an IFP application with a new complaint to commence

1

that new action. Because this action is now dismissed, plaintiff should not file an IFP application

2

or pay the filing fee in this action. The Clerk shall close the file.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

Dated: 6/14/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Notwithstanding his failure to pay the filing fee or submit a complete IFP application, Plaintiff
has continued to file documents in this action over the past several weeks. No further filings will
be accepted in this closed case.
2