Durand v. Hayman

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedJanuary 18, 2022
Docket3:21-cv-00478
StatusUnknown

This text of Durand v. Hayman (Durand v. Hayman) 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
Durand v. Hayman, (D. Nev. 2022).

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 ROBERTO DURAND, Case No. 3:21-cv-00478-MMD-WGC

4 Plaintiff ORDER

5 v.

6 K. HAYMAN,

7 Defendant

8 9 I. DISCUSSION 10 On November 10, 2021, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file a fully complete 11 application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP application") or pay the full $402 filing fee 12 for a civil action on or before January 10, 2022. (ECF No. 3 at 2). On November 16, 13 2021, Plaintiff filed an incomplete IFP application. (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff has not submitted 14 an inmate account statement for the previous six-month period with his IFP application 15 documents. The Plaintiff is advised that a Financial Certificate (page 4 of this Court's 16 application) and an inmate account statement for the previous six-month period are two 17 separate documents the Court requires to consider his IFP application fully complete. 18 Because it appears that an extension of the initial deadline and another court order 19 are meaningful alternatives to dismissal here, the Court will grant Plaintiff one final 20 opportunity to submit an inmate account statement for the previous six-month period to 21 the Court on or before February 17, 2022. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 22 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (providing that “district court need not exhaust every sanction short 23 of dismissal before finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful 24 alternatives”). 25 II. CONCLUSION 26 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that on or before February 17, 2022, 27 Plaintiff shall either: (1) file a fully complete IFP application, on the correct form with 28 complete financial attachments in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); or (2) pay the full 1| $402 fee for filing a civil action (which includes the $350 filing fee and the $52 administrative fee). 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, 4} this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with 5 | the Court, under a new case number, when Plaintiff is able to submit a fully complete 6 | application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action. 7 8 DATED: January 18, 2022 ° bit. CG. Cobh 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

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

Related

Henderson v. Duncan
779 F.2d 1421 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Durand v. Hayman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durand-v-hayman-nvd-2022.