Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01658-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL J. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

SNOWDEN et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:08-cv-1658 JAM DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On February 21, 2013, the undersigned 

issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed due to 

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and his failure to comply with court orders. On April 25, 2013, the 

assigned district judge adopted the findings and recommendations in full and dismissed this 

action without prejudice. The court entered judgment on the same day. Plaintiff appealed, and 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 

Plaintiff has now filed a motion to re-file this action. The court will deny plaintiff’s 

motion as unnecessary. Plaintiff is advised that if he wishes bring a new cause of action based on 

his complaint in this action he does not need an order from this court granting him leave to do so. 

Plaintiff must file a new complaint as required by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

and he must either pay the required filing fee or file a new completed application requesting leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). Plaintiff should not list the 

Case 2:08-cv-01658-JAM-DAD Document 129 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

case number for this cause of action on his new complaint form or his new application to proceed 

in forma pauperis because this case is closed. This court will not issue any further orders in 

response to future filings in this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to re-file this action 

(Doc. No. 128) is denied as unnecessary.

Dated: October 8, 2015

 

DAD:9

mitc1658.new

Case 2:08-cv-01658-JAM-DAD Document 129 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 2