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).

Download PDF
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 (415) 782-8982. 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

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?