Opinion
2:22-cv-01265-RFB-VCF
08-31-2022
EDDIE RAY GEORGE WASHINGTON BOZARTH, Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN KATSCHKE, ET AL., Defendant.
MOTION TO USE IFP APPLICATION FROM 2:22-cv-01229 [ECF No. 3]
ORDER
CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se plaintiff Eddie Ray George Washington Bozarth filed a complaint, but he did not pay the filing fee, or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff then filed a motion asking the Court to use his IFP application from a previously filed case, Bozarth v. Meadow Valley Justice Court et al., 2:22-cv-01229-MMD-NJK, so that he did not have to fill out a new IFP application. ECF No. 3. I deny plaintiff's request.
I also note that the Court denied plaintiff's IFP application in that case. See Bozarth v. Meadow Valley, 22-CV-01229, at ECF No. 4.
To proceed without paying the standard filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and LSR 1-1 of the Local Rules of Practice require that a litigant must submit the court's form IFP application and supporting documents. If plaintiff wishes to commence this action, be must either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis on the Court's approved form and file it in this case OR pay the filing fee.
Accordingly, I ORDER that plaintiff must either (1) file an IFP application on the Court's approved form or (2) pay the filing fee by Friday, September 30, 2022. Failure to comply may result in case closure or dismissal.
I FURTHER ORDER that plaintiff's motion to use IFP application from 2:22-cv-01229 (ECF No. 3) is DENIED.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party's attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.