Walters v. The Venetian Resort Hotel and Casino et al

Filing 5

ORDER that 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Walters shall SUBMIT the court's filing fee by April 2, 2015. Failure to submit the filing fee by April 2, 2015 will result in a recommendation that Walters� 39; complaint be dismissed with prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that 2 Motion Motion to Amend the Docket, 3 Stipulation [Foreign Rule Number], and 4] Motion are STRICKEN. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 3/20/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
2

***

3

ARTHUR TERRY WALTERS,
Plaintiff,

4

vs.

Case No. 2:15–cv–00431–APG–VCF

THE VENETIAN RESORT HOTEL AND
CASINO, et al.,

ORDER

5
6
7

Defendant.

8

This matter involves pro se Plaintiff Arthur Terry Walters’ civil action against the Venetian Resort

9
10

Hotel & Casino. Before the court is Walters’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (#1 1), complaint

11

(#1-1), Motion to Amend the Docket (#2), “Stipulation [Foreign Rule Number]” (#3), and “Motion” (#4).

12

For the reasons stated below, Walters’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, his motions

13

and stipulation are stricken, and he is ordered to pay the court’s filing fee by April 2, 2015.

14
15
16

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a filing fee is required to commence a civil action in federal court. The
court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment of fees and costs or security
therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement showing the person is unable to

17

pay such costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The standard governing in forma pauperis eligibility under
18

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) is “unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” Determination of what
19

constitutes “unable to pay” or unable to “give security therefor” and, therefore whether to allow a plaintiff
20
21

to proceed in forma pauperis, is left to the discretion of the presiding judge, based on the information

22

submitted by the plaintiff or plaintiffs. See, e.g., Fridman v. City of New York, 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 536

23

(S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 52 Fed. Appx. 157 (2nd Cir. 2002).

24
25

1

Parenthetical citations refer to the court’s docket
1

Here, Walters failed to complete his in forma pauperis application. He checked boxes indicating
1
2

that he is employed, has money in a checking or savings account, and owns stocks. (Doc. #1 at 2). But,

3

Walters failed to state the value of his assets. (Id.) Rather, he wrote “See [:] National Print [.]” under each

4

question. (Id.) This is inadequate.

5

The court also strikes Watlers’ Motion to Amend the Docket (#2), “Stipulation [Foreign Rule

6

Number]” (#3), and “Motion” (#4). In addition to being premature, these motions are frivolous and

7

vexatious. The motions contain pages of illegible and nonsensical text. For instance, the Motion to Amend

8

the Docket, states, inter alia:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Confirmation [,]Of[,] [My] Use[,] Of[,] Director' [,] Rule[;] Executive Secretary[;] ODNI
[;] [703] 733 - 8600 [Superceeds []That[,] Of[,] Director[;] G. Clapper[;] "A" Entity]["Blue
Light" [;] Requested [,] For [,] Any [,] Refusal [,] Of[,] Rule [;] Title 50 [;] United States
Code [;] General [;] United States Air Force [On [,] Administrative[,] Leave [,] Executive
[,] Capacity[;] For [,][My] Court Days [;] Until [:] 3 March 2015 - 15 March 2015][:]
Motion
[Amendment [,] To [,] Docket]
he Following Procedural Motion [,] Is [,] Entered [,] To [,] Amend [,]The [,] Docket [;]
Basis [,] Is [,] [A] Request[,] For[,] Foreign Rule[;] An[;] [My] Evocation [ODNI][,] Of[:]
The[;] [US] [a] National Security[;] And[;] [b] [US] National Intelligence Acts
[Text][[Both] Motions[,] And[,] Complaint][.]
[The] Docket [,] Is [,] Incorrect [,] In [,] That [,] [The] Case Code [;] Must Be [,] That [,]
Of[,] That [,] Assigned [,] For[,] Foreign [,] Rule [Case [,] Code [:] 432 [;]An [;]Specialty[;]
Category[:] "F"][.] [A] Failure [,] To [,] Docket [,] Based [,] Upon [,] This [,] Data [;]
Results [,] In [,] [A] Case [,] Whom' [;] Decision [;] Is [,] Not [,] Based [,] Upon [,] [The]
Actual [,] Subject [;] Submitted [Foreign [National] Rule] [Rule [,] Is [,] Applicable [:]
[US] Dual Nationals][.]

19
20
21
22

This continues for forty-two pages. Walters’ complaint, stipulation, and motion contain comparable
language. The court has inherent authority to strike a party’s papers and motions. See Metzger v. Hussman,
682 F. Supp. 1109, 1110 (D. Nev. 1988).

23

ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown,

24

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (#1-1) is DENIED.

25

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Walters SUBMIT the court’s filing fee by April 2, 2015. Failure
1
2
3
4
5

to submit the filing fee by April 2, 2015 will result in a recommendation that Walters’ complaint be
dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Walters’ Motion to Amend the Docket (#2), “Stipulation
[Foreign Rule Number]” (#3), and “Motion” (#4) are STRICKEN.

6

NOTICE

7

Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and

8

recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk

9
10

of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal
may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified

11

time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections
12

within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the
13
14
15
16

right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court.
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452,
454 (9th Cir. 1983).

17

Pursuant to Local Special Rule 2-2, the Plaintiff must immediately file written notification with

18

the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing

19

party of the party’s attorney. Failure to comply with this Rule may result in dismissal of the action.

20

See LSR 2-2.

21

DATED this 20th day of March, 2015.

22
23

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25

3