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)

Download PDF
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

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?