Crawford v. Ducart

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's IFP Application is DENIED as incomplete. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/7/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2019)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

CHRISTOPHER LEE CRAWFORD,

Case No. 18-cv-05141-YGR (PR)

Plaintiff,
5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

v.
6
7

C. E. DUCART,
Defendant.

8
9

This suit was reassigned from a magistrate judge to the undersigned in light of a recent
Ninth Circuit decision.1 On August 22, 2018, Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed an incomplete pro se

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

prisoner complaint form under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which was mostly blank except for the caption,

12

place of confinement, and grievance procedure acknowledgement on the first page as well as the

13

date/signature on the last page. See Dkt. 1. On that same date, Plaintiff submitted to the Court an

14

incomplete in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application, which was mostly blank except for the caption

15

on the first page and the date/signature on the last page. Dkt. 2. He also attached his six-month

16

prisoner trust account statement, but he did not provide his Certificate of Funds. See id.

17

On September 14, 2018, the Clerk of the Court sent a notification to Plaintiff informing

18

him that he had not paid the filing fee and the IFP application he submitted was incomplete (the

19

form was blank, and he had not submitted his Certificate of Funds). Dkt. 6. The Clerk provided

20

Plaintiff with a blank IFP application form, along with a return envelope, instructions, and a

21

notification that the case would be dismissed if Plaintiff failed to pay the fee or file the completed

22

application within twenty-eight days.
On September 21, 2018, the Clerk sent another notification to Plaintiff explaining that his

23
24

complaint form was incomplete. Dkt. 7. The Clerk provided Plaintiff with a copy of a blank

25

complaint form, along with a return envelope, instructions, and a notification that the case would

26
27
28

1

Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction
to dismiss case on initial screening because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed
before magistrate judge).

1

be dismissed if Plaintiff failed to submit a completed complaint on form within twenty-eight days.

2

To date, Plaintiff has failed to submit a completed complaint form, and the time to do so has

3

passed. The Court notes that on October 3, 2018, Plaintiff had sent a letter to the Clerk explaining

4

that he “had already submitted a 9 page Amended Complaint.” Dkt. 8. However, no such

5

amended complaint was attached to that October 3, 2018 letter. See id. And nothing in the record

6

indicates that such an amended complaint had ever been filed in this case.
On October 4, 2018, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Clerk indicating that he was attempting to

7
8

submit a completed IFP application, but prison officials in the trust account office had “delayed”

9

the processing of his IFP application. Dkt. 9 at 1.
On October 5, 2018, the Clerk of the Court sent a second notification to Plaintiff again

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

informing him that he had neither paid the filing fee nor filed a completed IFP application. Dkt.

12

10. The Clerk once again provided Plaintiff with a blank IFP application form, along with a return

13

envelope, instructions, and a notification that the case would be dismissed if Plaintiff failed to pay

14

the fee or file the completed application within twenty-eight days.
On October 9, 2018, Plaintiff submitted to the Court a filled-out IFP application and his

15
16

six-month prisoner trust account statement, but his Certificate of Funds was not included.
Thereafter, as indicated above, this case was reassigned to the undersigned judge. Dkts.

17
18
19

12, 13.
The twenty-eight-day deadline to submit his Certificate of Funds has passed, and Plaintiff

20

has failed to do so. As mentioned, Plaintiff has also failed to submit a completed complaint form

21

by the October 29, 2018 deadline, which passed more than sixty days ago. Nor does the record

22

show that Plaintiff actually filed a “9-page Amended Complaint” as he had indicated in his

23

October 3, 2018 letter. See Dkt. 8.

24
25
26
27
28

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s IFP
application is DENIED as incomplete. The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2019

______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Court Judge
2