(PS) Dacumos v. World Savings, No. 2:2010cv00854 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/28/10 ORDERING that the previously filed FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 are VACATED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Dacumos v. World Savings Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EDUARDO DACUMOS, 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-00854 FCD KJN PS v. WORLD SAVINGS BANK, Defendant. ORDER / 16 Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel and has not paid the fee ordinarily 17 required to file an action in this court, previously filed an incomplete application to proceed in 18 forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (See Dkt. No. 2). Because the incomplete 19 application prevented the court from properly evaluating whether plaintiff should be granted 20 leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the undersigned granted plaintiff twenty-one days within 21 which to either: (1) file a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, or (2) file the 22 appropriate initial filing fee of $350.00. (Dkt. No. 3.) Plaintiff did not submit a completed 23 application or the appropriate initial filing fee. As a result, the undersigned entered proposed 24 findings and recommendations that recommended the denial of plaintiff’s application to proceed 25 in forma pauperis, and that plaintiff be provided twenty-one days within which to pay the 26 appropriate initial filing fee. (Dkt. No. 4.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 On June 28, 2010, plaintiff filed: (1) objections to the proposed findings and 2 recommendations, and (2) a second application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 6.) 3 Plaintiff’s objections explain that, due to certain physical limitations including partial paralysis 4 and significant visual impairment, he relies on others to check and retrieve his mail and that 5 correspondence from the court regarding his incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis 6 “was inadvertently overlooked and was not given to the plaintiff in time.” (Dkt. No. 6 at 2.) 7 The undersigned concludes the reasons provided by plaintiff support vacating the 8 previously filed findings and recommendations. Plaintiff is informed, however, that future 9 failures to comply with court orders, the court’s local rules, or the rules of civil procedure may 10 result in the dismissal of his case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rules 110, 183(a); see Hells 11 Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) 12 (recognizing that courts may dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) 13 sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the 14 court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow 15 a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 16 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other 17 litigants.”). 18 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. 20 No. 4). 21 //// 22 //// 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 The previously filed findings and recommendations are vacated (Dkt. //// 2 1 2. The undersigned will resolve plaintiff’s second application to proceed in 2 forma pauperis, and screen plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), by separate 3 order and/or findings and recommendations. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 28, 2010 6 7 8 9 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
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.
