Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01347/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01347-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 

MICHALLA ALFARO BRITTANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHILD SUPPORT SERVICE 

SACRAMENTO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-1347 GEB AC (PS) 

ORDER 

 On June 20, 2016, the court denied plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, 

and granted plaintiff leave to re-file the application in proper form. ECF No. 3. On August 12, 

2016, the court reminded plaintiff that she needed to renew her IFP application or pay the filing 

fee, and plaintiff was granted 30 days to do so. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff was cautioned that her 

failure to comply with the order could result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. 

Id. Plaintiff has not renewed her IFP application, paid the filing fee, or taken any other action in 

this case. 

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this lawsuit be DISMISSED, without 

prejudice, for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s orders, and for failure to prosecute the 

action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders); E.D. Cal. 

R. (“Local Rule”) 110 (failure to comply with court orders). 

Case 2:16-cv-01347-GEB-AC Document 6 Filed 11/29/16 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

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: November 28, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-01347-GEB-AC Document 6 Filed 11/29/16 Page 2 of 2