Miller v. The Superior Court et al
Filing
8
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on 9/26/2013. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/26/2013: # 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE) (ofr, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
BRUCE WAYNE MILLER,
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. C 13-3638 PSG (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On July 26, 2013, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed in the Eastern District of California a
19
civil rights complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That same day, plaintiff also filed an
20
incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On August 5, 2013, the Eastern
21
District of California transferred this action to the Northern District of California. The following
22
day, the Clerk notified plaintiff that he had not paid the filing fee, nor had he filed a complete
23
application to proceed IFP. Along with the deficiency notice, plaintiff was provided with an IFP
24
application and instructions for completing it. Plaintiff was further cautioned that his failure to
25
file a complete IFP application, or pay the filing fee within twenty-eight days would result in the
26
dismissal of this action. On August 26, 2013, plaintiff consented to proceeding before a
27
magistrate judge. However, to date, plaintiff has not paid his filing fee, nor has he filed a
28
complete IFP application.
Case No. C 13-3638 PSG (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
1
2
3
4
Accordingly, the instant action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall
terminate all pending motions, enter judgment, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 26, 2013
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. C 13-3638 PSG (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
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?