Opinion
24-CV-01977-JSC
05-30-2024
INCHAUSTEQUI, Plaintiff, v. DOE, Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On April 1, 2024, the Clerk opened this matter based upon a letter received from Plaintiff. It is not clear from the letter what claims Plaintiff is making or what form of relief he seeks. On the same day, the Clerk notified Plaintiff that he had neither paid the filing fee nor completed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and that he must file his claims in a Complaint. The Clerk mailed Plaintiff the Court's IFP application and form Complaint along with the deficiency notices, as well as a stamped return envelope and instructions for completing the forms. The notice informed him the case would be dismissed if he did not file a Complaint and either pay the filing fee or file a completed IFP application within 28 days. The only filing received from Plaintiff since these deficiency notices is a one-page document that is not clear as to what Plaintiff is asserting or requesting.
An illustrative passage from the document states: “HNSC FSB 22002206 & E081085 Sacramento Eastern District Pelican Brief case law 3:24-01977 SK Northern District issue id question or court security fundage Pelican Bays restrictive custody General Population a non designated programming facility that does not identify as Sensitive Needs or General Population as cdc BT9904 [swastika sign] OSS AMERICANSKI [swastika sign] per orders CSP-Sacramento neck issue of yearbook. . ..” (ECF No. 5 at 1.)
As Plaintiff has not filed a complaint, paid the filing fee, or completed an IFP application, and he has not shown cause why not or requested an extension of the deadline, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.