(PC) Miles v. Laursen et al, No. 2:2023cv00663 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 07/25/2023 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to file a Motion to Procced IFP. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Spichka, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Miles v. Laursen et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGIA MILES, 12 13 14 No. 2:23-cv-0663 KJM AC P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PHILLIPA LAURSEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned will 20 recommend that this matter be dismissed. 21 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 22 On May 16, 2023, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed in forma pauperis affidavit and 23 to do so within thirty days. ECF No. 11. At that time, plaintiff was sent a copy of the court’s in 24 forma pauperis form, and she was cautioned that failure to comply with the court’s order would 25 result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed without prejudice. Id. 26 Since then, plaintiff has requested and has been sent two sets of complaint forms, two 27 more sets of in forma pauperis forms, and two sets of prisoner complaint packets. See ECF Nos. 28 12, 13 (court responses to plaintiff’s requests for forms in June 2023). Despite this fact, plaintiff 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 has not filed the in forma pauperis application that is required before the case can proceed. 2 Instead, plaintiff now requests additional prisoner and non-prisoner forms for other inmates as 3 well as a list of all her cases. See ECF No. 14-1 at 2. In addition, the in forma pauperis 4 application that is attached to the filing is incomplete, and it is covered with disjointed and 5 unintelligible statements. Id. at 5-6. 6 II. 7 “A part of the Court’s responsibility is to see that [its] resources are allocated in a way that DISCUSSION 8 promotes the interests of justice.” Day v. Day, 510 U.S. 1, 2 (1993) (brackets added) (citation 9 omitted). “[T]he goal of fairly dispensing justice . . . is compromised when the Court is forced to 10 devote its limited resources to the processing of frivolous and repetitious requests.” Whitaker v. 11 Superior Court of San Francisco, 514 U.S. 208, 210 (1994) (brackets added) (citation omitted). 12 Plaintiff has been given ample opportunity and much more than thirty days to complete 13 and file a proper in forma pauperis application. Despite this fact, she has failed to do so. To 14 allow plaintiff additional opportunities to attempt to file a proper in forma pauperis application 15 would not be the best use of limited judicial resources. Plaintiff has been told that failure to 16 submit a properly completed application would result in a recommendation of dismissal without 17 prejudice. ECF No. 11 at 2. Therefore, it will be recommended that this matter be dismissed for 18 failure to file a proper in forma pauperis application. 19 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to file an in forma pauperis application. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)-(2). 21 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 22 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 23 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 24 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 25 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 2 1 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 2 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 DATED: July 25, 2023 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
