From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Taiarol

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Apr 19, 2022
2:21-cv-1958 DB P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-1958 DB P

04-19-2022

STEVEN R. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. RYAN TAIAROL, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

DEBOFAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the court is plaintiff's motion to amend. (ECF No. 9.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant the motion to amend and direct plaintiff to either pay the filing fee in full or submit a properly completed in forma pauperis application within thirty days.

I. Motion to Amend

Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 9.) Therein, plaintiff states that he seeks to amend the complaint to add additional claims and defendants. (Id. at 1-2.)

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that courts “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). “In the absence of any apparent or declared reason-such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.-the leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.'” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

In light of plaintiff's stated reasons for amending the complaint, the court will grant the motion. However, plaintiff is advised that the court will not screen any complaint until plaintiff has either paid the filing fee in full or submitted a properly completed in forma pauperis application.

II. In Forma Pauperis Application

By order dated January 12, 2022, plaintiff was instructed to either submit the filing fee or a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff was given thirty days leave to comply with the order and advised that failure to comply would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Thereafter, plaintiff sought and obtained a thirtyday extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 7, 8.)

The extension of time has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an in forma pauperis application or paid the required filing fee of $350.00 plus the $52.00 administrative fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). Rather, he has filed a motion to amend (ECF No. 9), which the court addressed above, as well as a notice (ECF No. 10) regarding his intent to file an amended complaint. The court will provide plaintiff with one final opportunity to file a properly completed in forma pauperis application or pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.

If leave to file in forma pauperis is granted, plaintiff will still be required to pay the filing fee but will be allowed to pay it in installments. Litigants proceeding in forma pauperis are not required to pay the $52.00 administrative fee.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 9) is granted;

2. Plaintiff shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, an affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided by the Clerk of the Court, or the required fees in the amount of $402.00; plaintiff's failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Taiarol

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Apr 19, 2022
2:21-cv-1958 DB P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2022)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Taiarol

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN R. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. RYAN TAIAROL, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Apr 19, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-1958 DB P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2022)