Larson et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al, No. 1:2010cv01774 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Plaintiff Baker's Motion to Proceed IFPsigned by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/17/2011. Objections to F&R due by 3/3/2011. (Leon-Guerrero, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Larson et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DAVID LARSON, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ ) Case No. 1:10-cv-01774 OWW JLT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFF BAKER’S MOTION TO PROCEED IFP (Doc. 14) 17 18 Plaintiff Brandi Baker moved this Court for an order allowing her to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP) on appeal. (Doc. 14) However, in her motion, Ms. Baker failed to provide a 20 sworn statement outlining her ability to pay the filing fee on appeal. 21 On January 31, 2011, the Court ordered Ms. Baker to file, within ten days, a further 22 motion to proceed IFP, signed under penalty or perjury, that contained all of the pertinent 23 information. (Doc. 15 at 2) The order read, “Baker is admonished that failure to comply with 24 this order may result in denial of her motion to proceed in forma pauperis.” (Id., emphasis in 25 the original.) 26 Nevertheless, Plaintiff Baker has failed to file a amended motion to proceed IFP. 27 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Therefore, the Court recommends that the motion be DENIED. This Findings and Recommendations is submitted to the United States District Court 3 Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 4 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 5 Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party 6 may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 7 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies 8 to the Objections shall be served and filed within 14 days after service of the Objections. The 9 Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The 10 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 11 appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: February 17, 2011 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
