Bolton v. City of Berkeley et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying 8 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by A. Bolton, Order denying 9 MOTION for Reconsideration re 5 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by A. Bolton; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE to Plaintiff. Show Cause Response due by 9/11/2017. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 8/25/2017. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

A. BOLTON,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 4:17-cv-03913-KAW
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION; ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AS
MOOT; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 8 & 9

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

On July 12, 2017, Plaintiff A. Bolton’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was
denied with leave to amend because he did not include his full name. (Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff was
given until July 28, 2017 to file an amended IFP application. Id. at 2. Plaintiff was advised that the
failure to file an amended IFP application could result in his case being dismissed for failure to
prosecute. Id.
On July 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel and requested that the
Court grant a 90 day extension to file the IFP application. (Dkt. No. 6.) This request was denied on
August 4, 2017, and Plaintiff was given until August 14, 2017 to file an amended IFP application.
(Dkt. No. 7.) Also on August 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a duplicative motion for appointment of
counsel and requested a 90 day extension to file the IFP application. (Dkt. No. 8.) Since the Court
already ruled on this motion, the duplicative motion is DENIED as moot.
On August 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order
denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis on the grounds that the case has
“considerable needs.” (Dkt. No. 9.) The Court DENIES the request for reconsideration, and notes
that Plaintiff’s IFP application is now delinquent.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why he is repeatedly

1

violating the Court’s order to furnish his legal first name and why he has not filed an amended IFP

2

application. Plaintiff shall respond in writing to the order to show cause no later than September

3

11, 2017, and shall include his legal first name. Also by September 11, 2017, Plaintiff must

4

either 1) separately file an amended IFP application with his full legal name; or 2) pay the filing

5

fee of $400 and furnish the Court with his full legal name. The failure to timely and fully respond

6

to the order to show cause and file an IFP application or pay the filing fee may result in the

7

dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute.

8
9

The Court notes that Plaintiff has recently filed numerous lawsuits in federal court, and, to
the undersigned’s knowledge, refuses to fully identify himself in any of them. Anonymity is
permitted only “in special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

with Civil Local Rule 7-9 will not be considered by the Court.

17
18
19
20

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 25, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2