From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cruz v. Simpson

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Feb 21, 2023
22-cv-04898-HSG (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2023)

Opinion

22-cv-04898-HSG

02-21-2023

GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. R. SIMPSON, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE IN FULL RE: DKT. NO. 7

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for an extension, Dkt. No. 7, and DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee in full.

On December 16, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the three-strikes provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the $402 filing and administrative fee in full by January 16, 2023 or face dismissal of this action. Dkt. No. 6. The deadline to pay the filing fee in full has passed, and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee.

Plaintiff has filed a request for an extension of time to file a response to the Court's December 16, 2022 Order, and to Dkt. Nos. 2 and 4. Dkt. No. 7. This request is DENIED. The Court's December 16, 2022 Order does not require a response, and Dkt. Nos. 2 and 4 are pleadings filed by Plaintiff. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis, that request is DENIED. See N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9 (requiring leave of court to file a motion for reconsideration before judgment has been entered). Plaintiff has not offered any reason why the Court should grant him leave to file a motion for reconsideration. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to fulfill his payment obligation, that request is DENIED. Plaintiff has not offered any reason he requires an extension of time. If Plaintiff is later able to pay the filing fee in full, he may move to reopen this case.

The Court DISMISSES this action for failure to pay the filing fee in full. This dismissal is without prejudice to filing a request to reopen, but any request to reopen must be accompanied by the full filing and administrative fees. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff, terminate Dkt. No. 7, terminate any remaining pending motions as moot, and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Cruz v. Simpson

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Feb 21, 2023
22-cv-04898-HSG (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2023)
Case details for

Cruz v. Simpson

Case Details

Full title:GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. R. SIMPSON, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Feb 21, 2023

Citations

22-cv-04898-HSG (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2023)