(DLB)(PC) Howard v. Sullivan et al - 6

Reviews
Shared by: Tim Stanley
Stats
views:
23
rating:
not rated
reviews:
0
posted:
4/15/2008
language:
pages:
0
(DLB)(PC) Howard v. Sullivan et al Doc. 6 Case 1:07-cv-00988-OWW-NEW Document 6 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 vs. 13 W. J. SULLIVAN et al., 14 Defendants. 15 / 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -1Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis did not include the required original signature by an authorized officer of the institution of incarceration. Additionally, plaintiff has not filed a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the six month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Plaintiff will be provided the opportunity to submit a new application to proceed in forma pauperis and a certified copy of his trust account statement, or to pay the $350.00 filing fee. /// CLARENCE E. HOWARD, Plaintiff, 1:07-cv-00988-OWW-NEW (DLB) (PC) ORDER TO SUBMIT NEW APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND CERTIFIED COPY OF TRUST ACCOUNT STATEMENT OR PAY FILING FEE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:07-cv-00988-OWW-NEW Document 6 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 i0d3h8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk’s Office shall send to plaintiff the form for application to proceed in forma pauperis. 2. Within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall submit a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis and a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the six month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint, or in the alternative, to pay the $350.00 filing fee for this action. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 12, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -2-

Shared by: Tim Stanley
Other docs by Tim Stanley
Related docs
(DLB)(PC) Howard v. Sullivan et al - 7
Views: 25  |  Downloads: 0
(DLB)(PC) Howard v. Sullivan et al - 8
Views: 17  |  Downloads: 0
(DLB) (PC) Williams v. Sullivan et al - 4
Views: 23  |  Downloads: 0
(DLB) (PC) Craig v. Hernandez - 6
Views: 32  |  Downloads: 0
(DLB)(PC)Smith v. Perez et al - 6
Views: 17  |  Downloads: 0
(DLB) (PC) Williams v. Tate et al - 6
Views: 33  |  Downloads: 0
(DLB) (PC) Garcia-Mejia v. Gilkey et al - 6
Views: 22  |  Downloads: 0
(DLB) (PC) Rowe v. Castro et al - 6
Views: 17  |  Downloads: 0
(DLB) (PC) Delahoussaye v. Pear et al - 6
Views: 22  |  Downloads: 0
(DLB)(PC) Washington v. Yates, et al - 6
Views: 27  |  Downloads: 0
(DLB) (PC) Wade v. Liles et al - 6
Views: 14  |  Downloads: 0
(DLB) (PC) Farlough v. Garcia et al - 6
Views: 16  |  Downloads: 0
(DLB) (PC) Bradford v. Knowles et al - 6
Views: 15  |  Downloads: 0