Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05788/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05788-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY BUFORD,

Plaintiff, CV F 02 5788 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER

C/O CLEVELAND, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On June 14, 2004, the Magistrate Judge entered an order denying Plaintiff leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to

the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff sought reconsideration of that ruling

and on February 11, 2005, the District Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

Plaintiff was directed to submit the $150 filing fee in full. Plaintiff was specifically cautioned

that his failure to do so would result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.

On February 22, 2005, the order denying the motion for reconsideration and 

directing Plaintiff to pay the filing fee was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. 

On March 9, 2005, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, indicating his release from

Case 1:02-cv-05788-OWW -WMW Document 32 Filed 05/17/05 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

2

custody. Plaintiff provided an address of P.O. Box 2467, Fairfield, California. On March 16,

2005, an order was entered, directing the Clerk’s Office to re-serve Plaintiff at his address of

record, and granting plaintiff an extension of time in which to submit the filing fee. On April

13, 2005, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, indicating an address of 500 Union

Avenue, Fairfield, California. On April 21, 2005, an order was entered, granting plaintiff an

extension of time to May 16, 2005, to submit the filing fee in full. That order was served upon

Plaintiff at his Union Avenue address. On April 27, 2005, Plaintiff filed a document titled as a

motion for court orders previously sent. Plaintiff seeks to have previous court orders sent to him

at his Union Avenue address. 

The docket reflects that Plaintiff was properly served on April 21, 2005, at his

Union Avenue address. That order specifically directed Plaintiff to submit the $150 filing fee

for this action within twenty days. Plaintiff, as the prosecutor of this action, is responsible for

compliance with all court orders properly served upon him. The court will provide Plaintiff with

one further opportunity to submit the filing fee. Plaintiff has been advised, on numerous

occasions, that he has not alleged facts that satisfy the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

The only issue in this case is whether Plaintiff has paid the filing fee. This action will not

proceed until Plaintiff has done so. Plaintiff is granted an extension of time of twenty days from

the date of service of this order in which to submit the $150 filing fee. Failure to do so will result

in dismissal of this action for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05788-OWW -WMW Document 32 Filed 05/17/05 Page 2 of 2