Johnson v. Garofalo et al

Filing 33

ORDER Granting Defendants' 23 Motion to Revoke Plaintiff's Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff has until 10/27/2017 to pay the complete filing fee. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 9/25/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5

LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON,
6

Plaintiff,
2:16-cv-01889-GMN-VCF

7

vs.
8

ORDER
9
10

GAROFALO, et al.,
Defendants.

MOTION TO REVOKE PLAINTIFF’S LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 23)

11
12
13

Now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s Leave to Proceed In Forma

14

Pauperis (ECF No. 23), Plaintiff’s response (ECF No. 26), and Defendants’ reply (ECF No. 29). For the

15

reasons discussed below, Defendants’ motion is granted.

16

Under the Local Rule of Practice for the United States District Court of Nevada, “[T] Court

17

may…revoke leave to proceed in forma pauperis if the party to whom leave was granted becomes capable

18

of paying the complete filing fee.” LSR 1-5. In this case, subsequent to Plaintiff filing his application to

19

proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff received a $25,000 settlement award. (ECF No. 23 at 2). Records

20

indicate Plaintiff currently has over $3,000 in his trust accounts. Therefore, Plaintiff is capable of paying

21

the complete filing fee.

22
23
24
25

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to revoke Plaintiff’s leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until October 27, 2017 to pay the complete filing
fee. Failure to timely pay the filing fee will result in a recommendation for dismissal without prejudice.

NOTICE

1
2

Under Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Order must be in writing and filed with the Clerk

3

of the Court within 14 days. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an

4

appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. (See Thomas v. Arn,

5

474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985)). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified

6

time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the

7

District Court’s order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. (See Martinez v.

8

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th
9

Cir. 1983)).
10

Pursuant to LSR 2-2, the Plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any
11
12
13

change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party or the party’s
attorney. Failure to comply with this Rule may result in dismissal of the action. (See LSR 2-2).

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

DATED this 25th day of September, 2017.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE