Opinion
CV-24-02417-PHX-JAT
11-19-2024
Rene Ortiz, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
JAMES A. TELIBORG, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On October 24, 2024, the Court issued the following Order:
Plaintiff, pro se, filed this case on September 13, 2024, seeking $200,000,000,000.00 in damages from each of 11 Defendants who represent the Federal Government, the California state government, the Arizona state government, and the Government of Mexico. Plaintiff neither paid the filing fee nor moved to proceed in forma pauperis to have the fee waived.
On September 16, 2024, the Clerk of the Court issued a minute order advising Plaintiff that within 30 days he must either pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis (attaching the appropriate form). (Doc. 5); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Thirty days have elapsed, and Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor moved to proceed in forma pauperis. No civil action can proceed under these circumstances. Wairimu v. Dir., Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 19-CV-174-BTM-MDD, 2019 WL 460561, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2019).
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED dismissing this case without prejudice and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.(Doc. 16).
Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1. Because judgment has entered, the Court liberally construes the motion as having been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a).
Plaintiff appears to be arguing there was a clerical error made by the Clerk's office. (Doc. 16). Plaintiff appears to argue that he originally filed a grievance in Tucson, and that his filing fee is “unverified” due to the “deletion of records.” (Id.).
This Court has no evidence that the filing fee was ever paid in this case. Further, Plaintiff does not allege he paid the filing fee in this case. Finally, to the extent Plaintiff may be arguing that a filing fee was paid to a Court in Tucson, and that such payment should be applied to this case, Plaintiff fails to attach any documentation showing a filing fee was paid in Tucson.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff has failed to show that any error was made by the Clerk's office. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 16) is denied.