Holt v. Yakima County Department of Corrections

E.D. Washington

Holt v. Yakima County Department of Corrections

DecidedDecember 16, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-03136

StatusUnknown

This text of Holt v. Yakima County Department of Corrections (Holt v. Yakima County Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holt v. Yakima County Department of Corrections, (E.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Dec 16, 2024 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 DEMARCUS HOLT, NO. 1:24-CV-3136-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 9 v. PREJUDICE

10 YAKIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 11 CORRECTIONS and CHIEF B. SPLAWN, 12 Defendants. 13

14 BEFORE THE COURT is the Court’s Order to Comply with Filing Fee 15 Requirements. ECF No. 6. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein and 16 is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, this action is dismissed without 17 prejudice. 18 On September 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant 19 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with an insufficient application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis. The Court attempted to advise Plaintiff of the deficiencies concerning 2|| his application, but the Order was returned as undeliverable. ECF Nos. 6, 7. 3 Parties filing actions in the United States District Court are required to pay 4|| filing fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed without the immediate 5|| payment of a filing fee only upon granting of in forma pauperis status. See 28 6|| U.S.C. § 1915. Failure to pay the statutory filing fee will result in dismissal of 7|| these actions without prejudice. See Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has authority to dismiss without prejudice prisoner 9|| complaint for failure to pay partial filing fee); Jn re Perroton, 958 F.2d 889, 890 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal of appeal of pro se litigant for failure to pay 11]| required filing fees). 12|} ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 13 This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to pay the filing fee 14]| or filing a properly completed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a). 16 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter Judgment 17|| accordingly, furnish a copy to Plaintiff, and CLOSE the file. 18 DATED December 16, 2024. 19 LOD Ug Kies gp Ta, 0. ee 20 On Xe THOMAS O. RICE <> United States District Judge

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

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Dec 16, 2024 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 DEMARCUS HOLT, NO. 1:24-CV-3136-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 9 v. PREJUDICE

10 YAKIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 11 CORRECTIONS and CHIEF B. SPLAWN, 12 Defendants. 13

14 BEFORE THE COURT is the Court’s Order to Comply with Filing Fee 15 Requirements. ECF No. 6. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein and 16 is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, this action is dismissed without 17 prejudice. 18 On September 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant 19 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with an insufficient application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis. The Court attempted to advise Plaintiff of the deficiencies concerning 2|| his application, but the Order was returned as undeliverable. ECF Nos. 6, 7. 3 Parties filing actions in the United States District Court are required to pay 4|| filing fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed without the immediate 5|| payment of a filing fee only upon granting of in forma pauperis status. See 28 6|| U.S.C. § 1915. Failure to pay the statutory filing fee will result in dismissal of 7|| these actions without prejudice. See Olivares v. Marshall, 59 F.3d 109, 112 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has authority to dismiss without prejudice prisoner 9|| complaint for failure to pay partial filing fee); Jn re Perroton, 958 F.2d 889, 890 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal of appeal of pro se litigant for failure to pay 11]| required filing fees). 12|} ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 13 This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to pay the filing fee 14]| or filing a properly completed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a). 16 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter Judgment 17|| accordingly, furnish a copy to Plaintiff, and CLOSE the file. 18 DATED December 16, 2024. 19 LOD Ug Kies gp Ta, 0. ee 20 On Xe THOMAS O. RICE <> United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Holt v. Yakima County Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holt-v-yakima-county-department-of-corrections-waed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack