A.B. v. City of Albany et al

Filing 19

Order Denying 16 Motion to Reconsider; Denying 18 Motion to Appear by Telephone; Order to Show Cause. Show Cause Response due by 9/13/2017. Initial Case Management Conference continued to 11/21/2017 at 1:30 p.m. Case Management Statement du e by 11/14/2017. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 8/29/2017. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2017) Modified on 8/29/2017 (kawlc2, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/29/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dtmS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

A.B.,

Case No. 17-cv-03272-KAW
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

CITY OF ALBANY, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RECONSIDER; DENYING MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR
TELEPHONICALLY; ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 16, 18

12
13

On June 14, 2017, Plaintiff A.B.'s application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied

14
15

with leave to amend because he did not include his full name.1 (Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiff was given

16

until June 23, 2017 to file an amended IFP application. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff was advised that the

17

failure to file an amended IFP application could result in his case being dismissed for failure to

18

prosecute. (Id.)

19

On June 23, 2017, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file an amended IFP

20

application. (Dkt. No. 10.) On June 26, 2017, the Court extended the time for Plaintiff to file an

21

amended IFP application to July 24, 2017.
On July 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the order denying his IFP

22
23

application. (Dkt. No. 12.) That same day, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration

24

as procedurally improper, and because Plaintiff failed to identify any error in the Court's order

25

denying his IFP application. (Dkt. No. 13 at 1-2.) The Court gave Plaintiff until August 4, 2017

26

to file an IFP application using his full name, and again warned that his case could be dismissed

27
1

28

Plaintiff's motion to file under seal his complaint, IFP application, and the motion to file under
seal itself was denied on June 7, 2017. (Dkt. No. 5 at 1-2.)

1
2

for failure to prosecute if Plaintiff did not do so. (Id. at 2.)
On July 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request that the Court modify its order denying Plaintiff's

3

IFP application to instead allow Plaintiff to pay in installments. (Dkt. No. 14.) The Court

4

construed Plaintiff's motion as a motion for reconsideration and denied it as procedurally

5

improper, and because Plaintiff again failed to provide any basis for the Court to modify its order.

6

(Dkt. No. 15 at 2.) Moreover, the Court noted that even if Plaintiff was willing to pay the filing

7

fee in installments, this would not abrogate Plaintiff's obligation to bring this case using his full

8

name, as Plaintiff has not established that he is entitled to not use his full name in this case. (Id.)

9

The Court gave Plaintiff until August 17, 2017 to file his amended IFP application.

10

On August 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the Court's order denying his

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

request to modify the order denying the application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 16.)

12

Plaintiff requests reconsideration because "children, disabled, and, [sic] elderly are involved,"

13

"[t]he case involves matters that are highly sensitive and of 'the utmost intimacy,'" and Plaintiff is

14

at risk of "more injury." (Dkt. No. 16 ¶¶ 6-7, 10.) Plaintiff has again failed to move for leave to

15

file his motion for reconsideration, and also provides no explanation for why providing his full

16

name would risk creating injury. The Court DENIES the request for reconsideration, and notes

17

that Plaintiff's IFP application is now delinquent.

18

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why he is repeatedly violating

19

the Court's order to furnish his full name and why he has not filed an amended IFP application.

20

Plaintiff shall respond in writing to the order to show cause no later than September 13, 2017, and

21

shall include his full name. Also by September 13, 2017, Plaintiff must either 1) separately file

22

an amended IFP application with his full legal name; or 2) pay the filing fee of $400 and furnish

23

the Court with his full legal name. The failure to timely and fully respond to the order to show

24

cause and file an IFP application or pay the filing fee will result in the dismissal of this case for

25

failure to prosecute. No further orders to show cause on these issues will be made.

26

The Court notes that Plaintiff has recently filed numerous lawsuits in federal court, and, to

27

the undersigned’s knowledge, refuses to fully identify himself in any of them. Anonymity is

28

permitted only "in special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice
2

1

to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity." Does I thru XXIII

2

v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). Generally, civil rights cases do

3

not warrant anonymity. If Plaintiff has new facts or law that will meet the requirements for

4

anonymity, however, he may file a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration as

5

required by Civil Local Rule 7-9(a). Future motions for reconsideration filed without complying

6

with Civil Local Rule 7-9 will not be considered by the Court.
In light of the above, the Court CONTINUES the initial case management conference set

7
8

for September 5, 2017 to November 21, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff's

9

motion to appear telephonically at the September 5, 2017 case management conference. (Dkt. No.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

18.)
Plaintiff is again directed to obtain assistance from the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help
Desk—a free service for pro se litigants—by calling [phone].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 29, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3