Opinion
23-cv-05653-HSG
10-03-2024
GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. CALDERON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
RE: DKT. NOS. 22, 23, 24
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the requests docketed at Dkt. Nos. 22, 23, 24; and DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee in full.
DISCUSSION
On August 28, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the three-strikes provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Dkt. No. 21. The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the $402 filing and administrative fee in full by September 26, 2024, or face dismissal of this action. Dkt. No. 21.
The deadline to pay the filing fee has passed, and Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee. Instead, Plaintiff has filed three pleadings.
First, Plaintiff has filed a request for a 90-day extension of time to file his objections to the Court's August 28, 2024 Order, arguing that the Court has engaged in “misinterpretation.” Dkt. No. 22. The Court DENIES this request. To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's August 28, 2024 Order, Plaintiff has not shown any of the factors required by N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9(b). See N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9(b) (requiring movant to show reasonable diligence in bringing motion for reconsideration and one of following: (1) material difference in fact or law exists from that which was previously presented to Court and difference was previously unknown to movant; (2) emergence of new material facts or change of law occurring after court order; or (3) manifest failure of Court to consider previously presented material facts or dispositive legal arguments). The conclusory, vague, and unsupported claim that the Court misinterpreted Plaintiff's pleadings does not satisfy the factors set forth in N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-11.
Second, Plaintiff has filed a pleading titled “Plaintiff's Motion for Correspondence,” wherein he states that cannot pay the filing fee because he is impoverished, has no loved ones, and has no prison job; that he believes that he is entitled to redress for violation of his constitutional rights; and that Defendants have placed him in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Dkt. No. 23. This pleading is DENIED because it is unclear what relief is sought.
Third, Plaintiff has filed a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 24. This application is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the Court's August 28, 2024 Order.
The Court DISMISSES this action for failure to pay the filing fee in full. This dismissal is without prejudice to filing a request to reopen, but any request to reopen must be accompanied by the full filing and administrative fees.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Dkt. Nos. 22, 23, and 24; and DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee in full. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. The Clerk is directed to terminate any remaining motions as moot and close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.