Minor N.S. et al v. Safeway, Inc. et al
Filing
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 16 20 24 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/13/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/13/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (rbe, COURT STAFF).
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
MINOR N.S., MOTHER C.C., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
11
12
13
14
15
v.
No. 12-1989
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
SAFEWAY, INC. RETAIL STORES,
et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
16
On April 20, 2012, plaintiffs “Minor N.S.” and “Mother C.C” filed this putative class action
17
related to defendant Safeway, Inc.’s actions towards plaintiffs after plaintiffs were caught stealing food
18
and drink from a Safeway grocery store. Along with their complaint, plaintiffs filed an application to
19
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a court may deny IFP status
20
if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.
21
O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). On May 17, 2012, Judge Seeborg, who was
22
originally assigned to this case, denied plaintiffs’ IFP application for failure to assert a claim for relief.
23
See May 17, 2012 Order, dkt. 9. Judge Seeborg stated that “if plaintiffs do not pay the filing fee by June
24
16, 2012, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice.” Plaintiffs thereafter moved for
25
reconsideration of that order, and moved for a preliminary injunction. See dkts. 11 and 12. On June 5,
26
2012, Judge Seeborg issued another order denying both motions, and reminding plaintiffs that they must
27
pay the filing fee to proceed with this action. See June 5, 2012 Order, dkt. 13. On June 7, 2012, this
28
Court related the case to two cases currently before the undersigned judge, Robin Hood v. U.S.
Government, et al., Case Nos. 12-1542 and 12-1788.
1
Because plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee by June 16, 2012 as required by the May 17, 2012
2
Order, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint and closed this case on June 18, 2012. See dkt. 17.
3
Plaintiff thereafter filed a document entitled “Motion to Reconsider and Authenticate Documents.”
4
However, as the case was dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee, the motion is
5
DENIED.
6
Plaintiff has filed two other documents in this closed case. The first is entitled, “Declaration of
7
(1443 Defendant)/Plaintiff Motion to Vacate State Court Rulings and Transfer Case to Related Case.”
8
Insofar as it is a motion, it is DENIED. The second is another application to proceed in forma pauperis.
9
Plaintiffs’ IFP status in this case has already been denied; this subsequent application is also DENIED.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Docket Nos. 16, 20, 24.
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
Dated: August 13, 2012
17
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?
