Olmo v. Narker et al

Filing 17

Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered denying without prejudice 9 ex-parte Motion; granting 14 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff may have until December 24, 2014 to comply with the directives contained in the October 21, 2014 Memorandum and Order and file an amended complaint. No further enlargement of time will be permitted, and failure to comply with the Court's directives will result in a dismissal of this action. (PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

JOHN IVAN OLMO,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEVEN NARKER, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-13434-WGY

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS NOS. 9 and 14
YOUNG, D.J.

November 10, 2014

Plaintiff John Ivan Olmo initiated this action on September
5, 2014, by filing a pro se complaint and motions for counsel and
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
By Memorandum and Order dated October 21, 2014, plaintiff’s
motions for counsel and

to proceed in forma pauperis were denied

and plaintiff was advised that his complaint failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted because it fails to meet
the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

See Docket No. 10.

Plaintiff was granted 35 days to

address the filing fee issue and file an amended complaint.

Id.

By Electronic Order dated November 10, 2014, plaintiff was
advised that his motion for extension of time will be granted if
he complies with the payment order of October 22, 2014.
Docket No. 16.

See

Now before the Court are plaintiff’s motions to

proceed in forma pauperis and for extension of time.
The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s renewed motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis.

Based upon the financial

disclosures, plaintiff is without funds to pay the filing fee and

his motion will be granted.

Because of this, plaintiff may have

until December 24, 2014 to comply with the directives contained
in the October 21, 2014 Memorandum and Order and file an amended
complaint.
As to plaintiff’s ex-parte motion, plaintiff asks the Court
“to convene in order and to duly reveal any pre-trial assessments
done or requested by Mr. S. Narker and or any of his counselorat-law assoc. in order to appear before the Court.”
No. 9, p. 1.

See Docket

As best can be gleaned from the motion, plaintiff

is concerned about pre-litigation actions that may be taken by
the defendants, including transferring assets, fleeing the
jurisdiction and/or delaying action.

The docket indicates that

summons have not issued and there is no record of the defendants
contacting the Court.

The Court will not take ex parte action at

this time and plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice
to renewing after he files an amended complaint.
Accordingly:
1.

The ex-parte motion (# 9) is denied without prejudice.

2.

The motion (#14) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

is ALLOWED.

Plaintiff may have until December 24, 2014 to comply

with the directives contained in the October 21, 2014 Memorandum
and Order and file an amended complaint.

No further enlargement

of time will be permitted, and failure to comply with the Court's
directives will result in a dismissal of this action.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ William G. Young
WILLIAM G. YOUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2