From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tunstall v. Fox

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 19, 2015
2:15-cv-1806 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015)

Opinion


ROBERT TUNSTALL, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT FOX, Defendant. No. 2:15-cv-1806 CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. October 19, 2015

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a two-page letter to the court with over one hundred pages of attachments, in which he states that he "filed a complaint with your Office against Warden Robert Fox and his Subordinate." (ECF No. 1.) It is not clear if plaintiff is referring to an action previously filed in this court.

         In order to commence a new action, plaintiff must file a complaint as required by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and plaintiff must either pay the required filing fee or file an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). (See ECF No. 3.) Except as to plaintiff's request for "protection, " discussed below, the court will not issue any orders granting or denying relief until an action has been properly commenced.

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.

         Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel in which he asserts that prison staff - apparently at California Medical Facility, where plaintiff was recently housed - were assaulting him and he feared for his life. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff states that he has "now been transferred back" to California State Prison - Sacramento, where he was assaulted by another person. (Id.) Plaintiff provides no details about the CSP-Sacramento assault or its timing. As plaintiff has not filed a valid complaint, has not paid the filing fee, and does not appear from these statements to be in imminent danger, the court will take no action based on this filing, except to deny plaintiff's premature motion for counsel.

         Plaintiff will be provided the opportunity to file his complaint, and to submit an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis or to submit the appropriate filing fee.

         In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4) is denied;

         2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the complaint. Plaintiff shall also submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, the application to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided by the Clerk of Court, or the filing fee in the amount of $400.00. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed;

         3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the court's form for filing a civil rights action, and the application to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner; and

         4. The October 5, 2015 order (ECF No. 3) is VACATED, as plaintiff's deadline to submit an IFP application or the filing fee has been extended per the instant order.


Summaries of

Tunstall v. Fox

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 19, 2015
2:15-cv-1806 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015)
Case details for

Tunstall v. Fox

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT TUNSTALL, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT FOX, Defendant.

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

Date published: Oct 19, 2015

Citations

2:15-cv-1806 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015)