Opinion
21-cv-00510-JSC
04-26-2021
ROBERT LAWRENCE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. GAVIN NEWSON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REASSIGNING AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Robert Lawrence Williams, proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil rights action against Governor Gavin Newsom, Bank of America Corporation, the CEO of Bank of America, and the Employment Development Department. (Dkt. No. 1.) Mr. Williams' complaint was accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis; however, the application is incomplete. (Dkt. No. 2.) The portion of the form asking about Mr. Williams' expenses is blank. (Dkt. No. 2 at 3.) In addition, the application indicates that he does not have a bank account, although his complaint appears to detail issues he has had with Bank of America taking money out of his account. (Compare Dkt. No. 2 at 3 with Dkt. No. 1 at 4-6.)
On January 27, 2021, the Court issued an Order asking Mr. Williams to complete an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis and provide the information sought on page 3 of the in forma pauperis application. (Dkt. No. 7.) Mr. Williams failed to do so by the deadline and the Court gave him a final opportunity to submit a complete in forma pauperis application or pay the filing fee. (Dkt. No. 10.) Mr. Williams has not done so or otherwise communicated with the Court. Both of the Court's orders referred Mr. Williams to the Pro Se Help Desk and warned him that failure to comply with the Court's Orders could result in reassignment of the action to a district judge and a recommendation that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 10.)
Because the unserved Defendants have not consented to the Court's jurisdiction, the Clerk of the Court is ordered to REASSIGN this action to a district court judge. See Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 548 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding that denial of in forma pauperis is a dispositive order which a magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to do without the consent of all the parties); see also Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 501, 504 (9th Cir. 2017) (magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to dismiss case on initial screening because unserved defendants had not consented to proceed before magistrate judge). The Court RECOMMENDS that the district court judge deny Mr. Williams' in forma pauperis application.
Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district court judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Civ. L.R. 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court's ultimate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.