From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barth v. Matsuno

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Jul 7, 2021
21-cv-03611-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-03611-WHO (PR)

07-07-2021

SHAWN DAMON BARTH, Plaintiff, v. L. MATSUNO, et al., Defendants.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

WILLIAM H. ORRICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

After plaintiff Shawn Damon Barth filed a complaint and an incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), the Clerk sent him a notice directing him to perfect his IFP application or pay the filing fee. Barth has not complied with the Clerk's Notice, nor responded in any way. Accordingly, Barth is ordered to show cause why the action should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and for failing to comply with the Clerk's Notice. The response to the Order to Show Cause must be filed on or before August 16, 2021. No extensions of time will be granted. In the alternative to showing cause why this action should not be dismissed, Barth may avoid dismissal by paying the full filing fee of $402.00, or filing a complete IFP application, by August 16, 2021. Failure to file a response by August 16, 2021, or failure to pay the full filing fee (or a complete IFP application) by that date, will result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Barth v. Matsuno

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Jul 7, 2021
21-cv-03611-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2021)
Case details for

Barth v. Matsuno

Case Details

Full title:SHAWN DAMON BARTH, Plaintiff, v. L. MATSUNO, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Jul 7, 2021

Citations

21-cv-03611-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2021)