-DAD (PS) Judd v. Secretary of State of California et al, No. 2:2011cv01557 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/04/11 ORDERING plaintiff's 07/11/11 motion to reopen and stay proceedings 6 is denied. Plaintiff's 08/11/11 further application for waiver of filing fe es 7 is denied. Plaintiff's defective motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed 10/20/11 8 is denied. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to pay the required filing fee or file a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided by the court. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)
Download PDF
-DAD (PS) Judd v. Secretary of State of California et al Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KEITH RUSSELL JUDD, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-11-1557 JAM DAD PS vs. SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ORDER AND Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with this action. By order filed 18 July 6, 2011, the court denied plaintiff’s defective application for waiver of filing fees and costs. 19 As directed by the court, the Clerk of the Court sent plaintiff a proper in forma pauperis 20 application form. Plaintiff was granted 45 days in which to obtain a trust account statement and 21 submit it with a properly completed in forma pauperis application on the form provided by the 22 court. Plaintiff was also cautioned that failure to comply with the court’s order would result in a 23 recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 24 Plaintiff responded by filing with the court a document styled “Motion to Reopen 25 and Stay Proceedings.” The court cannot reopen proceedings that have not been closed, and 26 plaintiff has cited no applicable legal authority for his motion to stay proceedings. Accordingly, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 plaintiff’s motion filed July 11, 2011 will be denied. Plaintiff’s additional filings on August 11, 2 2011 and October 20, 2011 demonstrate that he does not intend to comply with the requirements 3 of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiff’s July 11, 2011 motion to reopen and stay proceedings (Doc. No. 6) is 6 denied; 7 8 2. Plaintiff’s August 11, 2011 further application for waiver of filing fees (Doc. No. 7) is denied; 9 10 3. Plaintiff’s defective motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed October 20, 2011 (Doc. No. 8) is denied; and 11 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to 12 plaintiff’s failure to pay the required filing fee or file a properly completed application to proceed 13 in forma pauperis on the form provided by the court. 14 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 15 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 16 fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 17 written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections 18 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 19 ///// 20 ///// 21 ///// 22 ///// 23 1 24 25 26 In those filings plaintiff argues that this court should waive filings fees in connection with this action merely because other federal courts have waived filing fees in cases which he has pursued. He also contends that under the 24th Amendment, filing fees are a prohibited tax and cannot be collected in connection with this voting rights action. Plaintiff also advances other frivolous arguments in support of his contention that he should not be required to comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 2 1 objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal 2 the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 DATED: November 4, 2011. 4 5 6 7 DAD:kw Ddad1\orders.prose\judd1557.fifp.fpf 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3