From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Eagle

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Feb 26, 2024
23-cv-02612-AMO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2024)

Opinion

23-cv-02612-AMO (PR)

02-26-2024

STEVE R. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. JASON EAGLE, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING PRISONER IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION AS MOOT; DENYING CONSTRUED MOTION TO REOPEN ACTION; AND DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

Araceli Martinez-Olguin, United States District Judge

On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff Steve R. Smith, a former inmate at the Maguire Correctional Facility, filed a letter with the Court expressing his displeasure with the conditions of confinement in the jail. Dkt. 1. On that same date, the Clerk of the Court sent notices to Smith, informing him that his action could not go forward because he had not filed a complaint and a completed prisoner's in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. Dkts. 2, 3. The Clerk provided him with blank complaint and IFP application forms, along with a return envelope, instructions, and a notification that he must complete the complaint form and either pay the fee or return the completed IFP application within twenty-eight days, or his action would be dismissed. Id.

On June 30, 2023, Smith filed his completed pro se prisoner civil rights complaint form. Dkt. 7. However, Smith neither paid the filing fee nor returned the completed IFP application.

When more than twenty-eight days had passed after the deficiency notice was sent to Smith, and Smith had not responded to the notice, the Court, by Order dated July 13, 2023, dismissed the action without prejudice. Dkt. 9.

Thereafter, on July 27, 2023, Smith filed his completed prisoner IFP application. Dkt. 12. However, he did not file a motion to reopen the action. Nor did he explain why he was delayed in filing his completed prisoner IFP application. Instead, on the same date, he filed a letter indicating that his release date was on July 23, 2023, and his address after his release would be the following: “216 Mt. Herman Road, Suite 185 E, Scotts Valley, CA 95066.” Dkt. 11.

On August 2, 2023, Clerk's Office personnel sent Smith a letter informing him that his case had been closed on July 13, 2023, that he would need to file a motion to reopen, and that if he is released then he would need to file a non-prisoner IFP application, which was attached. See Dkt. 13 at 3. However, because the August 2, 2023 letter was sent to the jail, it was returned as undeliverable on August 14, 2023 because Smith was “NIC,” which means not in custody. See Id. at 1.

Thereafter, since Smith had been released, Clerk's Office personnel sent the same letter to Smith at the Mt. Herman Road address referenced above. Dkt. 14 at 2. That letter was also returned as undeliverable on December 28, 2023, with the following notation: “RETURN TO SENDER[,] NO MAIL RECEPTACLE[,] UNABLE TO FORWARD.” Id. at 1.

To date, Smith has not filed any other notices of a change of address nor has he communicated with the Court.

Accordingly, Smith's pending prisoner IFP application is DENIED as moot because he has been released from the jail. Dkt. 12. To the extent that Smith's filings (see Dkts. 11, 12) could be considered as a request to reopen the instant case, such a request is DENIED because he still has not submitted his completed non-prisoner IFP application. Smith may not proceed with this instant action without filing a new request for leave to proceed IFP. The Court will provide Smith with one final opportunity to submit a completed non-prisoner's IFP application along with a motion to reopen, which indicates the reason for the delayed filing of his non-prisoner IFP application. If, within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this Order is filed, Smith complies, then the Court may order the action reopened. If, however, Smith fails to do so, the action will not be reopened.

The Clerk shall send Smith a copy of this Order along with the Court's non-prisoner's IFP application, instructions for completing it, and a return envelope. The Clerk shall mail the aforementioned documents to the above-referenced address, and it shall also reflect that same address on the Court's electronic case management filing system as his current address.

This Order terminates Docket No. 12.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Smith v. Eagle

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Feb 26, 2024
23-cv-02612-AMO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2024)
Case details for

Smith v. Eagle

Case Details

Full title:STEVE R. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. JASON EAGLE, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Feb 26, 2024

Citations

23-cv-02612-AMO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2024)