Dean v. Braziel, et al.,
Filing
11
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/20/11. The court will not address plaintiff's untimely request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 9 . Should plaintiff file a request for relief from judgment, and should the court grant such request, the court will then consider plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Kaminski, H)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
ALTON DEAN,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
No. CIV S-11-0877 EFB P
vs.
H. BRAZIEL, et al.,
14
Defendants.
ORDER
/
15
On April 13, 2011, the court found that plaintiff did not pay the required filing fee or
16
17
submit an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the court ordered
18
plaintiff to submit either the filing fee or the application required by § 1915(a) within thirty days.
19
The order warned plaintiff that failure to do so might result in this action being dismissed. The
20
30-day period expired and plaintiff did not pay the filing fee, submit an application to proceed in
21
forma pauperis or otherwise respond to the court’s order. Accordingly, on May 26, 2011, this
22
action was dismissed without prejudice and judgment was entered.1
23
////
24
1
25
26
Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the judgment and order
dismissing his case was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility
to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f),
service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective
1
1
2
On May 31, 2011, plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. He did not,
however, request relief from judgment. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b):
7
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that,
with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is
based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
8
Accordingly, the court will not address plaintiff’s untimely request for leave to proceed in forma
9
pauperis. Should plaintiff file a request for relief from judgment, and should the court grant
3
4
5
6
10
such request, the court will then consider plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma
11
pauperis.
12
13
14
15
The court notes that it will issue no response to future filings by plaintiff in this action
not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
So ordered.
Dated: June 20, 2011.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
