Cook v. Las Vegas Metro Police Department

D. Nevada

Cook v. Las Vegas Metro Police Department

DecidedApril 8, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-00535

StatusUnknown

This text of Cook v. Las Vegas Metro Police Department (Cook v. Las Vegas Metro Police Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cook v. Las Vegas Metro Police Department, (D. Nev. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 *** CHRISTOPHER COOK, 8 Case No. 2:22-cv-00535-GMN-VCF Plaintiff, 9 vs. 10 ORDER LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 11 Defendant. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 12 P

AUPERIS (EFC NO. 2)

13 Pro se plaintiff Christopher Cook filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). ECF 14 No. 1. I deny Cook’s IFP application without prejudice. 15 16 DISCUSSION 17 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or 18 security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to 19 pay such fees or give security therefor.” If the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915(h), as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), he remains obligated to pay the 21 entire fee in installments, regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 23 Under the PLRA, a prisoner seeking leave to proceed IFP must submit a “certified copy of the 24 trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the six-month period 25 immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the Court must assess an initial 1 payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the 2 average monthly balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner 3 4 has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the 5 prisoner must collect subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month's income, in any 6 month in which the prisoner's account exceeds $10, and forward those payments to the Court until the 7 entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 8 Plaintiff is currently incarcerated. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff filed an affidavit, but he did not submit a 9 signed certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent), obtained from the 10 appropriate official at the detention center, for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of 11 his complaint. Plaintiff submitted a financial certificate, which he filled out himself, and stated that his 12 filing fee is $0; however, no official signed the certificate (the signature portion is blank). ECF No. 2 at 13 4. Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice. Since I deny 14 plaintiff’s IFP application, I do not screen his complaint now. 15 ACCORDINGLY, 16 17 I ORDER that Cook’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without 18 prejudice. 19 I FURTHER ORDER that Cook has until Monday, May 9, 2022, to file an updated IFP 20 application or pay the filing fee. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in case closure or a 21 recommendation for dismissal with prejudice. 22 NOTICE 23 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 24 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 25 2 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal

> {| may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 3 || ime. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 4 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 5 || failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 6 || Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 7 |) 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 8 || Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any ° change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 DATED this 8th day of April 2022. CaM FERENBACH 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 *** CHRISTOPHER COOK, 8 Case No. 2:22-cv-00535-GMN-VCF Plaintiff, 9 vs. 10 ORDER LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 11 Defendant. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 12 P

AUPERIS (EFC NO. 2)

13 Pro se plaintiff Christopher Cook filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). ECF 14 No. 1. I deny Cook’s IFP application without prejudice. 15 16 DISCUSSION 17 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or 18 security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to 19 pay such fees or give security therefor.” If the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915(h), as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), he remains obligated to pay the 21 entire fee in installments, regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 23 Under the PLRA, a prisoner seeking leave to proceed IFP must submit a “certified copy of the 24 trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the six-month period 25 immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the Court must assess an initial 1 payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the 2 average monthly balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner 3 4 has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the 5 prisoner must collect subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month's income, in any 6 month in which the prisoner's account exceeds $10, and forward those payments to the Court until the 7 entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 8 Plaintiff is currently incarcerated. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff filed an affidavit, but he did not submit a 9 signed certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent), obtained from the 10 appropriate official at the detention center, for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of 11 his complaint. Plaintiff submitted a financial certificate, which he filled out himself, and stated that his 12 filing fee is $0; however, no official signed the certificate (the signature portion is blank). ECF No. 2 at 13 4. Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice. Since I deny 14 plaintiff’s IFP application, I do not screen his complaint now. 15 ACCORDINGLY, 16 17 I ORDER that Cook’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without 18 prejudice. 19 I FURTHER ORDER that Cook has until Monday, May 9, 2022, to file an updated IFP 20 application or pay the filing fee. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in case closure or a 21 recommendation for dismissal with prejudice. 22 NOTICE 23 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 24 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 25 2 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal

> {| may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 3 || ime. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 4 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 5 || failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 6 || Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 7 |) 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 8 || Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any ° change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 DATED this 8th day of April 2022. CaM FERENBACH 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cook v. Las Vegas Metro Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-las-vegas-metro-police-department-nvd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack