Rothschild v. Gildred

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 1, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-01713
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 THOMAS ETIENNE ROTHSCHILD, Case No. 23-cv-01713-LJC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 9 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

10 STEPHANIE ANN GILDRED, et al., Re: ECF No. 6 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Thomas Etienne Rothschild filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis 14 (IFP) on April 10, 2023. ECF No. 2. On May 2, 2023, the Court denied Mr. Rothschild’s IFP 15 application without prejudice because his application was incomplete as filed. ECF No. 6. Mr. 16 Rothschild had until May 19, 2023 to submit an amended IFP application. Id. No amended IFP 17 application has been filed, although the Court does take judicial notice of the fact that Mr. 18 Rothschild filed amended IFP applications in the related case pending before this Court, 19 Rothschild v. The Pacific Companies, No. 23-cv-01721-LJC, ECF Nos. 11, 12. See Reyn’s Pasta 20 Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746, n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (federal courts “may take 21 judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record.”) Nevertheless, Mr. Rothschild 22 is instructed that even though the two cases are judicially related, he is required to submit a 23 separate, amended IFP application on the docket for this case for the Court’s consideration. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 Accordingly, Mr. Rothschild has until June 15, 2023 to submit his renewed IFP application 2 in the present matter. Per the Court’s prior Order, failure to do so may result in the reassignment 3 of this action to a district judge with a report and recommendation that the IFP application be 4 denied. See ECF No. 6. 5 The Clerk shall include a copy of the IFP application with this Order. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: June 1, 2023 8 9 LISA J. CISNEROS 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27