Bank v. 4 Unknown Agents of the General Services Administration

Filing 7

ORDER Adopting 5 Report and Recommendation. Denying 6 Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff's Complaint is Dismissed. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 10/15/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9

Steven J. Bank,
Case No.: 2:13-cv-01044-JAD-PAL

10
11
12

Plaintiff
vs.

13

4 Unknown Agents of the General Services
Administration,

14

Order Adopting Report and
Recommendation [Doc. 5], Denying
Application to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis [Doc. 6], and Dismissing
Complaint

Defendants

15
16

This case arises out of Plaintiff Steven Bank’s Bivens action against four security officers at

17

the Lloyd D. George United States Courthouse in Las Vegas, Nevada. See Doc. 6. Bank filed an

18

Application to Proceed in forma Pauperis, Doc. 1, on June 11, 2013. Magistrate Judge Peggy A.

19

Leen issued an Order on July 11, 2013, that denied Bank’s application without prejudice because it

20

lacked necessary information. Doc. 3. She further directed him to file a new application by August

21

9, 2013; he filed nothing. Id. Accordingly, Judge Leen issued a Report of Findings and

22

Recommendation on August 5, 2013, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Application to

23

Proceed in Forma Pauperis and dismiss this action. Doc. 5.

24

The Court is mindful that federal courts must “liberally construe the ‘inartful pleading’ of

25

pro se litigants” like the plaintiff in the instant case. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th

26

Cir. 1987) (quoting Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam)). But a pro se

27

litigant is “expected to abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates.” Carter v. C.I.R., 784

28

F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Taylor v. Comm’r, 771 F.2d 478, 479–80 (11th Cir. 1985)
(per curiam); United States v. Merrill, 746 F.2d 458, 465 (9th Cir. 1984)). Like all litigants, Bank

1

may submit an in forma pauperis application, but he must satisfy the District of Nevada’s

2

requirements in order to qualify for such status. Ignoring the Magistrate Judge’s Order to submit a

3

new application that contains the information necessary for processing his application—or failing to

4

request additional time to comply with the Order—is a sure path to denial of in forma pauperis

5

status.

6
7
8
9
10

The Court has considered the record and has made a determination consistent with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and applicable case law.
It is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Leen
[Doc. 5] is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. 6] is DENIED
and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED.

11

It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

12

DATED October 15, 2013.

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

_________________________________
JENNIFER A. DORSEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE