Bolton v. City of Berkeley et al

Filing 22

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 21 MOTION TO VACATE. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2017)

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

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
VACATE
Re: Dkt. No. 21

CITY OF BERKELEY, et al.,
Defendants.

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On April 20, 2017, Judge Kim’s order was returned to the Court as undeliverable. Dkt.
No. 10. However, on April 24, 2017, the Court sent a new copy of the order to Plaintiff at his
request, and that copy was not returned. See Dkt. No. 11. Nearly two months then passed, but
Plaintiff failed to file any additional paperwork supporting his IFP application. The Court
therefore dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or to submit a
complete IFP application and the case was closed on June 14, 2017. The Court instructed Plaintiff
that he may file a new action, but should include the filing fee or an IFP application with a new
complaint to commence that new action.

1

Notwithstanding this direction, on June 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the

2

Court’s order. Dkt. No. 21. The Court DENIES the motion. As previously instructed, if Plaintiff

3

wishes to pursue his claims, he is instructed to file a new action that includes a filing fee or a

4

completed IFP application. The Court will not consider any additional motions in this closed case.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 9/1/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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
2