From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Montgomery v. CDCR Corrs. Officer

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
May 10, 2023
1:23-cv-00439-ADA-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. May. 10, 2023)

Opinion

1:23-cv-00439-ADA-BAM (PC)

05-10-2023

PAULINE MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff, v. CDCR CORRECTIONS OFFICER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER STRIKING UNSIGNED MOTION (ECF No. 7)

PLAINTIFF'S SIGNED COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (OR PAY FILING FEE) DUE:

JUNE 12, 2023

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Pauline Montgomery (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner and former county jail inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On March 24, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, completed and signed, including a certified copy of her trust account statement for the past six months, or in the alternative, to pay the $402.00 filing fee for this action. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was also directed to file a signed complaint, not to exceed 25 pages in length, or a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id.)

On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. (ECF No. 6.) The Court re-served the March 24, 2023 order on Plaintiff at her new address of record the same date. Plaintiff's signed complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis (or payment of the filing fee) are now due on or before June 12, 2023.

Currently before the Court is a document filed May 8, 2023, docketed as a motion for extension of time. (ECF No. 7.) Although the document does not contain Plaintiff's name or signature, it appears to be a letter from Plaintiff to the Court. Plaintiff states that she is writing concerning her criminal felony conviction, which she is appealing. She seeks an extension of time to turn in her appeal because she is in the process of transferring institutions and will not have access to her property during that time. Plaintiff further writes that she is making a complaint about an officer who assaulted her 2016. Plaintiff states that she needs representation to help her get copies of the video footage of the incident. (Id.)

Plaintiff's motion is not signed. As Plaintiff was previously informed, both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Rules require that all filed pleadings, motions and papers be signed by at least one attorney of record or by the party personally if the party is unrepresented. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a); Local Rule 131(b). As the motion is unsigned, the Court must strike it from the record. Plaintiff is cautioned that all future filings must include a signature, and any motion or filing that does not contain a signature will also be stricken from the record.

To the extent Plaintiff is requesting relief, such as an extension of time or appointment of counsel, in relation to a pending criminal appeal, Plaintiff is informed that this action is not the appropriate forum for obtaining such relief. This action is a civil rights action, and will have no effect on any criminal actions or direct appeals of convictions .

Plaintiff is reminded that she must file a signed complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis (or payment of the filing fee) in order to continue proceeding in this civil rights action.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 7), is STRICKEN from the record for lack of signature;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order, a blank in forma pauperis application for a prisoner, and a civil rights complaint form on Plaintiff;

3. On or before June 12, 2023, Plaintiff SHALL file:

a. The attached application to proceed in forma pauperis, completed and signed, including a certified copy of her trust account statement for the past six months, or in the alternative, pay the $402.00 filing fee for this action; and b. A signed complaint, not to exceed 25 pages in length, or a notice of voluntary dismissal; and

4. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Montgomery v. CDCR Corrs. Officer

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
May 10, 2023
1:23-cv-00439-ADA-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. May. 10, 2023)
Case details for

Montgomery v. CDCR Corrs. Officer

Case Details

Full title:PAULINE MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff, v. CDCR CORRECTIONS OFFICER, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: May 10, 2023

Citations

1:23-cv-00439-ADA-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal. May. 10, 2023)