Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00798-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

RICHARD J. MORRELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES SEPULVEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00798-SI 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PAY 

FILING FEE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 18, 19

On February 17, 2016, plaintiff filed his original complaint and an application to proceed 

in forma pauperis (IFP) before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. On March 

3, 2016, plaintiff’s IFP application was denied with leave to amend. See Dkt. No. 6. Judge 

Westmore concluded that plaintiff had filed an incomplete application, in that he had not fully 

answered question numbers 4, 7, 9, and 10. Id. The order stated: 

Plaintiff has not indicated the amount he contributes to his spouse’s support in his 

response to question 4.a, and while Plaintiff indicates that he has a bank account, he 

does not state the name and address of his bank and does not indicate the present 

balance in his account, all of which is required under question 7. Plaintiff has also 

failed to respond to question 9, which asks whether he has any other debts. 

Additionally, Plaintiff states that his complaint does not raise claims that have been 

presented in other lawsuits, but it appears that he has previously sued the same 

defendants in this court. See, e.g., Morrell v. Cowin, No. 97-cv-02684-VRW; 

Morrell v. Cowin, No. 97-cv-3890-VRW; Morrell v. McCardle, No. 98-cv-00174-

VRW; Morrell v. Contra Costa County, 98-cv-02636-VRW. If these earlier actions 

relate to the claims asserted in his current complaint, Plaintiff shall list these, and 

any other, actions in his response to question 10. 

Plaintiff was ordered to file his amended IFP application by April 6, 2016, or pay the filing fee by 

that date. Id.

On March 29, 2016, plaintiff sent a letter to the clerk’s office indicating that he would file 

a “[n]ew and completed [IFP] form” by April 3, 2016. Dkt. No. 9. He did not do so, nor did he 

Case 3:16-cv-00798-SI Document 21 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 3
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

pay the filing fee by April 6, 2016.

On April 6, 2016, this action was reassigned to the undersigned district judge. On April 

13, 2016, this Court issued an order denying plaintiff’s IFP application, reasoning that plaintiff 

was given over four weeks to cure the deficiencies in his application and failed to do so. See 

Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2005) (“In general, filing an action IFP is a 

privilege, not a right.”). Dkt. No. 13.

The Court’s April 13, 2016 order afforded plaintiff one additional week from the issuance 

of the order to pay the filing fee or to lodge with the Court an application for an extension of this 

April 20, 2016 deadline. Id. The order directed plaintiff that, if he sought an extension, he was 

required to “provide the Court with good cause to grant the extension and a reasonable date for 

payment of the fee.” Id. The ordered cautioned plaintiff that the Court “retain[ed] the discretion 

to dismiss plaintiff’s case should he fail to satisfactorily comply with these requirements.” Id. 

On April 18, 2016, plaintiff filed a letter with the Court stating that he had “been in the 

hospital for the last 12 days and unable to obtain [his] mail.” Dkt. No. 15. 

On April 22, 2016 plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, a renewed motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, a motion for “telephonic meetings [and] mailing documents,” and a 

letter that again stated plaintiff would file a “[n]ew and completed [IFP] form” by April 3, 2016.1 

Dkt. No. 16, 18, 19, 20. 

Plaintiff’s second IFP application was not timely filed and still does not comply with the 

requirements of Judge Westmore’s March 3, 2016 order. Dkt. No. 18; Dkt No. 6.2 Plaintiff was 

on notice of the requirements of this order as of March 3, 2016 — a month prior to his

hospitalization on or about April 6, 2016. Plaintiff has to date not paid the filing fee, despite 

Judge Westmore’s order and this Court’s April 13, 2016 order affording plaintiff an extension so 

 

1

This letter appears to be a duplicate of the letter plaintiff mailed on March 29, 2016, with 

the date changed to April 9, 2016. Dkt. No. 9, 20.

2

Plaintiff's original, incomplete IFP application used the appropriate IFP form for the 

Northern District of California. Dkt. No. 2. Plaintiff's later IFP application (Dkt. No. 18) is on a 

different form ("Short Form"), which includes fewer questions. It is also incomplete, and does not 

include much of the information Judge Westmore ordered.

Case 3:16-cv-00798-SI Document 21 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

that he might pay the fee. Dkt. No. 13. 

For these reasons, plaintiff’s case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to 

pay the filing fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00798-SI Document 21 Filed 04/26/16 Page 3 of 3