Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01446/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01446-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff also names as defendants “Washington Mutual Bank, F.A.” and

“Washington Mutual.” Washington Mutual Bank has notified the Court it was formerly

known as “Washington Mutual Bank, FA.” It appears from the complaint that “Washington

Mutual” is the same entity, as there is no indication of service upon, or any separate

appearance by, an entity by that name. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES M. FORDJOUR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, et

al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-1446 MMC (PR) 

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE AND VACATING

HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

ARBITRATION AND FOR STAY;

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR INJUNCTION AND FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 2, 3, 5 & 11)

On March 13, 2007, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at San

Quentin State Prison and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil action against

defendant Washington Mutual Bank,1

 alleging breach of contract as well as violations of the

Fair Credit Reporting Act and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985. Plaintiff has paid the filing fee. 

On March 13, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for a “permanent injunction” pursuant to

Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has neither complied with the

notice requirement of Rule 65(a)(1), nor certified the reasons for his not having provided

such notice, as required by Rule 65(b). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for an injunction

pursuant to Rule 65 is hereby DENIED.

Case 3:07-cv-01446-MMC Document 12 Filed 06/08/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On May 24, 2007, defendant Washington Mutual Bank filed a motion to compel

arbitration and for a stay of this action, and noticed the hearing for July 13, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. 

Within 21 days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff shall file any opposition to defendant’s

motion. If plaintiff files opposition, defendant shall file a reply to such opposition no later

than 14 days after the date such opposition is filed. In light of plaintiff’s pro se and

incarcerated status, the date for hearing noticed in the motion is hereby VACATED. The

motion will be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due, and no hearing will be

held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. All communications by plaintiff

with the Court must be served on defendant’s counsel by mailing a true copy of the document

to defendant’s counsel. 

On May 30, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s

motion is hereby DENIED as there are no exceptional circumstances warranting such

appointment. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) (finding no

constitutional right to counsel in civil case).

In light of plaintiff’s payment of the filing fee, his applications to proceed in forma

pauperis, filed March 13, 2007 and March 30, 2007, respectively, are hereby DENIED as

moot. 

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to prosecute. Any motion for an extension

of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be extended and must be

accompanied by a showing of good cause. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 11.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 8, 2007

_________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01446-MMC Document 12 Filed 06/08/07 Page 2 of 2