Jones v. Triple Canopy Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 11, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01225
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 CORTEZ DAUNDRE JONES, CASE NO. 2:23-CV-01225-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION 13 TRIPLE CANOPY INC., 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 17 United States Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson. Dkt. No. 4. She recommends denying Mr. 18 Jones’ IFP application and directing him to either submit a corrected IFP application or pay the 19 filing fee. Id. at 1–2. On September 8, 2023, the Court deferred ruling on Judge Peterson’s R&R 20 and permitted Mr. Jones 30 days to file an amended IFP application. Dkt. No. 6 at 2. It cautioned 21 Mr. Jones that his failure to timely submit a revised IFP application would result in the adoption 22 of Judge Peterson’s recommendation that he be required to pay the normal filing fee. Id. 23 Mr. Jones did not file a corrected IFP application. The Court therefore ADOPTS Judge 24 Peterson’s R&R, Dkt. No. 4, and ORDERS Mr. Jones to pay the filing fee within 21 days of the 1 date of this Order. If he fails to timely pay the filing fee, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court 2 to close this case. See Hopkins v. Tacoma Mun. Ct., 393 F. App’x 476, 477 (9th Cir. 2010) 3 (affirming dismissal for failure to follow the district court’s order to pay the case filing fee). The 4 Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Mr. Jones at his last known address1 and to Judge

5 Peterson. 6 Dated this 11th day of October, 2023. 7 A 8 Lauren King United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 The Court also previously warned Mr. Jones that “pro se litigants must keep the Court advised as to their current 22 mailing address,” and that “[i]f mail is returned as undeliverable and a pro se plaintiff fails to notify the Court within 60 days thereafter of his or her current mailing address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Dkt. No. 6 at 2 (citing LCR 41(b)(2)). The Court’s Order Deferring Ruling Upon Report and 23 Recommendation was returned as unclaimed. Dkt. No. 7 at 1. Even if Mr. Jones pays the filing fee, he must update his address with the Clerk’s Office within 60 days of the date of this Order. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of 24 this action without prejudice.