Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Vianez v. Washington State Patrol

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

December 30, 2013

JUAN VIANEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

KAREN L. STROMBOM, Magistrate Judge.

On November 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a proposed civil rights complaint. Dkt. 1. He did not pay the Court's filing fee or submit an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Id. On November 8, 2013, the Clerk advised Plaintiff that he must either submit the full $400.00 filing fee or submit an IFP application on or before December 9, 2013. Dkt. 2. When he failed to do so by that date, the Court ordered him to pay the $400.00 filing fee or submit an IFP application for Court approval on or before January 2, 2014. Plaintiff was further advised that his failure to do so would be deemed a failure to properly prosecute this matter and the Court will recommend dismissal of this action. Dkt. 4. On December 23, 2013, Plaintiff responded that "Mr. King has provided the courts with all the info they need. He would like the pro bono and personal investigation he has requested." Dkt. 5.

DISCUSSION

A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(a). However, the court has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 845 (1963).

CONCLUSION

Because Plaintiff has twice failed to comply with this Court's directives to pay the Court's filing fee or submit a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis, this case should be dismissed without prejudice.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P."), Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections thereto. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed set this matter for consideration on January 17, 2014, as noted in the caption.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.