John Cephas Young v. Levert

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-9199-VBF (KK) Date: March 16, 2021 Title:

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEB TAYLOR Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: Order to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed On January 29, 2021, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) finding Plaintiff’s Amended IFP Application constructively filed1 January 9, 2021, dkt. 11, was deficient because Plaintiff failed to submit a properly completed Certificate of Authorized Officer signed by an authorized officer at Plaintiff’s institution, attaching a certified copy of Plaintiff’s prison trust account statement for the last six (6) months in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Dkt. 12. Plaintiff was ordered to respond in writing by February 26, 2021, why the Amended IFP Application should not be denied. Id.

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s January 29, 2021 OSC or submitted an IFP Application that corrects the deficiency. THEREFORE, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before March 23, 2021 why this action should not be dismissed for failure to file a proper in forma pauperis application and/or failure to prosecute and comply with Court orders.

Alternatively, Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice. Plaintiff may request a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The Clerk of Court has attached a Notice of Dismissal form.

1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se inmate gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating the “mailbox rule applies to § 1983 suits filed by pro se prisoners”). Plaintiff is expressly warned that his failure to timely comply with this Order may result in denial of his in forma pauperis application and/or dismissal of this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.