Pulido v. Brown

Full title: ERNESTO NODA PULIDO, Plaintiff, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 27, 2015

2:15-CV-0749-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2015)

Opinion

ERNESTO NODA PULIDO, Plaintiff, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, et al., Defendants. No. 2:15-CV-0749-CMK-P United States District Court, E.D. California. August 27, 2015

          ORDER

          CRAIG M. KELLISON, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 6, 2015, the court directed plaintiff to resolve the fee status for this case within 30 days of the date of the order. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders and rules. See Local Rule 110. To date, plaintiff has not complied by either paying the full filing fee or filing a complete application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

         Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to resolve fees. Plaintiff is again warned that failure to respond to this order may result in dismissal of the action for the reasons outlined above, as well as for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules and orders. See id.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.