Opinion
23-cv-01279-BAS-JLB 23-cv-01280-BAS-JLB
06-11-2024
MELVIN MARINKOVIC, Plaintiff, v. KIMBERLY P. COCKERHAM, Defendant. MELVIN MARINKOVIC, Plaintiff, v. MARIA DANILYCHEV, Defendant
AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
HON CYNTHIA BASHANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
These cases are just two of many lawsuits filed by self-represented Plaintiff Melvin Marinkovic. In both cases, Plaintiff moved to proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)- without paying the filing fee. Plaintiff also moved to seal his IFP Applications.
The Court addressed the same requests in one of Plaintiff's other matters- Marinkovic v. Liberty Mutual Holding Co., Case No. 23-cv-1084-BAS-JLB. After the Court denied Plaintiff's requests, he filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit then dismissed his appeal because it was not substantial enough to warrant further review.
Then, in these cases, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motions to Seal and his Applications to Proceed IFP for similar reasons. The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee for each case or submit adequate proof of his inability to do so no later than May 30, 2024. The Court also cautioned him that a failure to do so would lead to dismissal. That deadline has come and gone, but Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee and failed to comply with the Court's order in both actions. Specifically, in Case No. 23-cv-1279, Plaintiff filed nothing, making dismissal appropriate on that ground alone.
As for Case No. 23-cv-1280, Plaintiff did not file anything in response to the Court's order, but the Court notes that Plaintiff filed an identical Application to Proceed IFP on the same date the Court issued its prior order. This Application to Proceed IFP is inadequate for the same reasons the Court discussed before. Plaintiff did not file a revised IFP Application after receiving the Court's order or otherwise “provide sufficient credible support that [he] is unable to afford the costs of this litigation.” See, e.g., Adeyinka v. Walmart, No. 3:23-CV-393-JR, 2023 WL 3027318, at *1 (D. Or. Apr. 11, 2023). Hence, this identical IFP application is denied for the same reasons. And Case No. 23-cv-1280 is likewise subject to dismissal, and Plaintiff may reopen the case by paying the filing fee.
Consequently, the Court DISMISSES these actions without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall close both cases.
IT IS SO ORDERED.