Opinion
1:19-cv-01425-NE-EPG
11-03-2021
CHRISTOPHER MILLS, Plaintiff, v. WENGER, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
On October 9, 2019, Christopher Mills, a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). He requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (ECF No. 2). However, Plaintiff's IFP application did not make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) because the IFP application indicated that Plaintiff had cash but failed to state the total amount of that cash so as to determine whether Plaintiff qualified for IFP status. Accordingly, the Court ordered him on October 16, 2019, to submit a renewed IFP application or pay the filing fee within 30 days. (ECF No. 3).
The thirty-day period has expired, and Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee, submit an IFP application, or otherwise respond to the Court's order.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action be dismissed, without prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914 or to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915; and
2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
3. Alternatively, if Plaintiff files an IFP application or pays the filing fee within thirty (30) days, this Court will vacate these findings and recommendations.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.”
Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.