Opinion
No. CV 11-01105-GMS-JRI.
September 1, 2011
ORDER
Plaintiff Christopher Stoller, who is confined in the Lake County Adult Corrections Facility, in Waukegan, Illinois, filed a pro se Complaint asserting fraud claims and violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with a pro se motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which was not on this District's court-approved form. (Doc. 1.) In an Order filed on July 25, 2011, this Court denied Plaintiff's in forma pauperis motion with leave to file a new in forma pauperis application within 30 days using this District's required form. (Doc. 9.) On August 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief, a notice of interlocutory appeal concerning the denial of his in forma pauperis motion, and a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. (Doc. 10, 11, 12.) The Court denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal as not taken in good faith. (Doc. 16.) By separate order, the Court also denied Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff filed a second interlocutory appeal concerning the denial of injunctive relief and he also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in that appeal and a motion for stay pending appeal. (Doc. 21, 22.) In an Order filed on August 10, 2011, those motions were denied and the Court certified that Plaintiff's interlocutory appeals were not taken in good faith. (Doc. 27.)
On August 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed another motion to stay proceedings on the basis that he had just learned of the death of his 29-year old son on August 6, 2011. (Doc. 28.) In light of the procedural posture of this case, Plaintiff's motion for stay will be denied. Plaintiff has failed to submit this District's approved form for a prisoner to seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the $350.00 filing fee. As Plaintiff was previously informed in the Court's July 25, 2011 Order, this action will be dismissed without prejudice if he fails to comply with that Order within 30 days of its issuance.
The Court will also summarily deny Plaintiff's motion to consolidate this action with Bank of New York Mellon v. Ribadeniera, No. CV11-0982-PHX-FJM. (Doc. 7.) That case was remanded to state court on July 8, 2011.
Warnings
A. Address Changes
Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action.
B. Copies
Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Plaintiff.
C. Possible Dismissal
If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the Court).
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff's motion to consolidate is denied. (Doc. 7.)
(2) Plaintiff's motion for stay is denied. (Doc. 28.)