Scruggsv.Petterson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAJun 7, 2019
No. 2:19-cv-0032 AC P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2019)

No. 2:19-cv-0032 AC P

06-07-2019

ARTAY L. SCRUGGS, Plaintiff, v. A.W. PETTERSON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a civilly committed detainee proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed February 7, 2019, plaintiff was ordered to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee and warned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff responded to the order by filing a request to have the court withdraw the filing fee from his account. ECF No. 5. The request was denied because it was unclear whether plaintiff had all the money in his account and was unable to withdraw it, or was attempting to have the fee paid in increments. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was then given an additional thirty days to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. After plaintiff failed to submit an application, pay the fee, or otherwise responded to the court's order, he was given a final extension of time to comply with the February 7, 2019 order and warned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed without further warning. ECF No. 7. That time has now passed, and plaintiff has once again failed to pay the filing fee, submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise respond to the order.

Although plaintiff is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections, he has represented that he is a civilly committed detainee (ECF No. 1 at 4) and is therefore not required to pay the filing fee in increments if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, the court cannot grant such leave without an application that makes the required showing of indigence. --------

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: June 7, 2019

/s/_________


ALLISON CLAIRE


UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE