(PC) Griffin v. Price

[6] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [7] EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [9] 10 DEXTER LAWRENCE GRIFFIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-01518-AWI-BAM (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 12 v. FORMA PAUPERIS 13 PRICE, (Do. No. 18) 14 Defendant. [15] 16 Plaintiff Dexter Lawrence Griffin is a civil detainee1 who proceeded pro se in this civil [17] rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . [18] On October 18, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order directing Plaintiff to [19] submit a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis on the appropriate form for non20 prisoners or to pay the $402.00 filing fee to proceed with this action. Doc. No. 7. Following an [21] extension of time and Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s orders or otherwise [22] communicate with the Court, on December 20, 2021 the magistrate judge issued findings and [23] recommendations to dismiss this action, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to obey Court [24] orders and failure to prosecute. Doc. No. 13. Plaintiff filed objections on January 3, 2022. Doc. [25] No. 14. [26] 27 1 Individuals like Plaintiff who are detained pursuant to the California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison 28 Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.2d 1136 , 1140. (9th Cir. 2000). 1 In light of Plaintiff’s objections, on January 5, 2022, the undersigned found it appropriate [2] to hold the December 20, 2021, findings and recommendations in abeyance and granted Plaintiff [3] a further thirty (30) day extension of time to file his application to proceed in forma pauperis or [4] to pay the filing fee to proceed with this action. Doc. No. 15. [5] The extended deadline passed, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order or [6] 7 otherwise communicate with the Court regarding this action. Accordingly, the Court ordered that 8 the December 20, 2021, findings and recommendations were adopted in full and this action was 9 dismissed, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to [10] prosecute. Doc. No. 16. The case was closed and judgment entered the same date. Doc. No. 17. [11] On March 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Objecting to Order Holding [12] Findings and Recommendation in Abeyance and Granting Extension of Time to File a Non13 Prisoner Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,” dated January 13, 2022, and apparently in [14] 15 response to the Court’s January 5, 2022 order holding the findings and recommendations in 16 abeyance. Doc. No. 18. In that document, Plaintiff appears to explain that he had some difficulty 17 obtaining a copy of the patient account ledger report to attach to his in forma pauperis [18] application. Plaintiff has also attached several copies of his patient account summary or patient [19] ledger report, see id. at 3–5, and a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis for a non20 prisoner. See id. at 8–9. [21] The Court finds Plaintiff’s objections and application to be untimely. Plaintiff had until [22] 23 the beginning of February 2022 to either pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in 24 forma pauperis. Plaintiff failed to do either, so the Court closed this case. Plaintiff’s response is [25] a month late and contains no explanation of when the application was mailed or why it is so late. [26] Therefore, the Court will not consider the application and will not reopen this case. [28] 1 ORDER 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: ; 1. Plaintiff’s objections and application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED as untimely; and 6 2. This case remains CLOSED. [7] 8 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 2p 9 | Dated: _March 24, 2022 7 Sz, 7 Cb Lec 10 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE