Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00917/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00917-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re JAMES D. ADAMS,

Case No. 16-cv-00917-YGR (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On February 24, 2016, this action was opened when the Court received from Plaintiff a 

completed civil rights complaint form and some attached exhibits.1 Dkt. 1. The Court notes that 

Plaintiff had written the case number of his prior closed action, Case No. 12-6276 YGR (PR), on 

the complaint form. See id. at 1. Plaintiff had also written the words “Seeking to Reinstate the 

Original Pleadings 12/11/12”2under the title of the complaint form. See id.

However, in this action, the Clerk of the Court opened a new case file, sent out a notice 

that Plaintiff had not paid the filing fee or filed an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application, and 

cautioned that the action would be dismissed if he did not pay the filing fee or submit his IFP 

application within twenty-eight days. 

On March 7, 2016, Plaintiff submitted his IFP application. Dkt. 5.

Also on March 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document entitled, “Petition[] to Expeditiously 

Reinstate My Original Order to Waive Fees,” which was construed by the Clerk as a motion to 

expedite relief. Dkt. 4. 

In light of Plaintiff’s indication that the complaint was to be filed in his prior action, Case 

No. 12-6276 YGR (PR), and his newly-filed request to “reinstate [his] original order to waive 

fees,” the Court finds that Plaintiff did not intended to commence a new action. Instead, Plaintiff 

had wished to file all the documents in the instant matter in his prior case, Case No. 12-6276 YGR 

 

1 On February 24, 2016, Plaintiff also completed a “Consent or Declination to Magistrate 

Judge Jurisdiction” form. Dkt. 2. The Court need not consider Plaintiff’s consent to magistrate 

judge jurisdiction because it will be dismissing this action, as explained below.

2

The Court notes that Case No. 12-6276 YGR (PR) was opened on December 11, 2012.

Case 4:16-cv-00917-YGR Document 6 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(PR). Therefore, this action is DISMISSED as opened in error. No filing fee is due. The Clerk 

shall file all the documents filed in this matter (dkts. 1, 2, 4, 5) as documents filed in Plaintiff’s 

prior action, Case No. 12-6276 YGR (PR),3and close this file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

 

3 Once all the documents are filed in Plaintiff’s prior action, Case No. 12-6276 YGR (PR), 

the Court will consider any requests to reopen that closed action in a separate written Order to be 

filed in Case No. 12-6276 YGR (PR).

Case 4:16-cv-00917-YGR Document 6 Filed 03/16/16 Page 2 of 2