(PC) Foust v. Consumer Attorney Marketing Service

E.D. California

(PC) Foust v. Consumer Attorney Marketing Service

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 28, 2023·No. 2:20-cv-02553·Unknown

Opinion

Case No. 2:20-cv-02553-WBS-JDP (PC) Plaintiff,

v. ORDER SERVICE, Defendant. The Clerk of Court closed this case on January 3, 2022.1 ECF No. 35. Plaintiff has since submitted a filing seeking refund of the filing fee.2 This filing does not appear to be one contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure. The filings will therefore be disregarded. Plaintiff is notified that the court will not respond to future filings in this action that are not authorized by either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s filing, ECF No. 39, is denied.

1 The assigned district judge referred this matter to the undersigned. ECF No. 39. 2 The court granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, which requires him to pay the filing fee in monthly installments. See Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Under the PLRA, all prisoners who file IFP civil actions must pay the full amount of the filing fee.”); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b)(1) & (2). > IT IS SO ORDERED. ( | { Wine Dated: _ August 28, 2023 q-—— JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Case No. 2:20-cv-02553-WBS-JDP (PC) Plaintiff,

v. ORDER SERVICE, Defendant. The Clerk of Court closed this case on January 3, 2022.1 ECF No. 35. Plaintiff has since submitted a filing seeking refund of the filing fee.2 This filing does not appear to be one contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure. The filings will therefore be disregarded. Plaintiff is notified that the court will not respond to future filings in this action that are not authorized by either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s filing, ECF No. 39, is denied.

1 The assigned district judge referred this matter to the undersigned. ECF No. 39. 2 The court granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, which requires him to pay the filing fee in monthly installments. See Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Under the PLRA, all prisoners who file IFP civil actions must pay the full amount of the filing fee.”); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b)(1) & (2). > IT IS SO ORDERED. ( | { Wine Dated: _ August 28, 2023 q-—— JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(PC) Foust v. Consumer Attorney Marketing Service, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

(PC) Foust v. Consumer Attorney Marketing Service ((PC) Foust v. Consumer Attorney Marketing Service) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related