Opinion
No. CV 06-1186-SMM (GEE).
June 15, 2006
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's "Request [of] Court to Proceding [sic] Pro-Per," (Doc. # 4) construed by the Court as a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Presumably, Plaintiff is responding to the Court's May 24, 2006 directive requiring Plaintiff to either pay the $350.00 filing fee for this action or file the appropriate application to proceed, see Doc. # 3; LRCIV 3.4(a). The Court provided Plaintiff with the correct application to complete and return. However, Plaintiff has not remitted the appropriate form, nor has he paid the filing fee for this action. Plaintiff's request merely states that he believes he is entitled to relief. Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's directive. The Court cannot grant Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court made clear in its May 24, 2006 Order that failure to comply with the Court's directive would result in dismissal,see Doc. # 3; Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. # 4) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in accordance with this Court's May 24, 2006 Order, Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to file an appropriate application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action.