(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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 Case No. 2:20-cv-02553-WBS-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER SERVICE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 The Clerk of Court closed this case on January 3, 2022.1 ECF No. 35. Plaintiff has since 18 submitted a filing seeking refund of the filing fee.2 This filing does not appear to be one 19 contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure. The filings will therefore be 20 disregarded. Plaintiff is notified that the court will not respond to future filings in this action that 21 are not authorized by either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of 22 Appellate Procedure. 23 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s filing, ECF No. 39, is denied.

24 25

1 The assigned district judge referred this matter to the undersigned. ECF No. 39. 26 2 The court granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, which requires him to 27 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 28 filing fee.”); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b)(1) & (2). 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ August 28, 2023 q-—— 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 Case No. 2:20-cv-02553-WBS-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER SERVICE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 The Clerk of Court closed this case on January 3, 2022.1 ECF No. 35. Plaintiff has since 18 submitted a filing seeking refund of the filing fee.2 This filing does not appear to be one 19 contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure. The filings will therefore be 20 disregarded. Plaintiff is notified that the court will not respond to future filings in this action that 21 are not authorized by either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of 22 Appellate Procedure. 23 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s filing, ECF No. 39, is denied.

24 25

1 The assigned district judge referred this matter to the undersigned. ECF No. 39. 26 2 The court granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, which requires him to 27 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 28 filing fee.”); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(b)(1) & (2). 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ August 28, 2023 q-—— 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(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