McElroy v. U.S. District Court Executive Officials

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 10, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-04374
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LATHWAHN MCELROY, Case No. 25-cv-04374-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE IN 9 v. FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION; DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 10 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EXECUTIVE PREJUDICE OFFICIALS, et al., 11 Re: Dkt. No. 3 Defendants. 12 13 On May 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 14 Dkt. No. 1. The complaint names as defendants “U.S. District Court Executive Officials, Does 1 15 to 3, Clerk of Court, Court Mailbox Authority Does 1 to 3 et al.” Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2. The 16 complaint alleges that Plaintiff has suffered “constitutional interference” with his pending cases 17 that have interfered with “efficient private right of legal action;” and that he has severe issues for 18 which he requires an “urgent healthcare compliance order” for an inhaler, and housing at an offsite 19 medical center and free access to petition. See generally Dkt. No. 1. 20 That same day, the Court informed Plaintiff that the action was deficient because Plaintiff 21 had not paid the filing fee or filed an in forma pauperis application. Dkt. No. 2. The Court 22 ordered Plaintiff to correct this deficiency by June 21, 2025, and sent Plaintiff a blank in forma 23 pauperis application form. Id. 24 On June 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a request for a 30-day extension of time to file his in 25 forma pauperis application. Dkt. No. 3. Plaintiff states that, starting June 9, 2025, he was moved 26 between four facilities; that he did not receive the Court’s May 22, 2025 notice regarding his IFP 27 deficiency until May 29, 2025; that each facility has a different “fee waiver” process; that he is 1 waivers; and he is currently unable to access the law library and jailhouse lawyers because KVSP 2 is on lockdown. In this motion, Plaintiff also requests “accommodation of additional time to 3 access the law library for services & supplies / information necessary;” “all his legal belongings 4 that are relevant to any legal sense & right of action, including securus or other tablet services (as 5 contracted);” “that the CDCR provision adequate basic necessities opposed to stripped cell 6 malcondition also all of Plaintiff medicinal/legal belongings transfers along with him at safe time, 7 as of 5/30/25;” and “all his property, resources, ink, legal paper, magnifier (page).” Dkt. No. 3 8 The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file his in forma pauperis 9 application and denies as moot the remaining requests for relief. Dkt. No. 3. Plaintiff is well 10 aware of the filing fee requirement, as he is a frequent litigant. Plaintiff has filed at least sixty 11 cases in California’s federal district courts, and over ten appeals in the Ninth Circuit. See PACER 12 Case Locator (last visited July 1, 2025). 13 Plaintiff has failed to file the application itself, which remains the same, regardless of where he is 14 housed. In addition, this action is likely frivolous and duplicative. Plaintiff has sued court 15 administration to challenge dismissals of his prior actions, and court officials are generally 16 immune from civil suits seeking to hold them liable for performing functions necessary to the 17 judicial process. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir. 2003). The complaint also 18 raises the same claims of inadequate medical care and retaliation that Plaintiff has raised in prior 19 actions. Compare Dkt. No. 1 with C No. 25-cv-0314, McElroy v. Dep’t. of Corr., et al., Dkt. No. 20 1. Duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action is subject to dismissal 21 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious. Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). An 22 in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be 23 considered abusive and dismissed under Section 1915. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 24 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. 25 The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file his in 26 forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 3; and DISMISSES this action for failure to timely file an in forma 27 pauperis application. The dismissal is without prejudice to filing a motion to reopen, 1 Plaintiff failed to timely file an in forma pauperis application. Judgment is entered against 2 Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants. The Clerk shall close the case. 3 This order terminates Dkt. No. 3. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: 7/10/2025 6 □ nade S. GILLIAM, JR. / 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28