From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harrell v. Martinez

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 22, 2024
24-cv-03213-JD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2024)

Opinion

24-cv-03213-JD

08-22-2024

ESHAWN M. HARRELL, Plaintiff, v. MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants.


ORDER RE DISMISSAL

JAMES DONATO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff, a detainee acting pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff was sent a notice that he had not paid the filing fee or submitted a complete application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). He was provided twenty-eight days to correct these deficiencies. More than twenty-eight days has passed, and plaintiff has not paid the fee, filed a complete application to proceed IFP or otherwise communicated with the Court. The case is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Harrell v. Martinez

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 22, 2024
24-cv-03213-JD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2024)
Case details for

Harrell v. Martinez

Case Details

Full title:ESHAWN M. HARRELL, Plaintiff, v. MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Aug 22, 2024

Citations

24-cv-03213-JD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2024)