Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03727/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03727-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY D. YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-3727 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a civil detainee being held under California’s “Sexually Violent Predator

Act” (“SVPA”), see Cal. Welfare & Inst. Code §§ 6600, et seq., and proceeding pro se, filed

the above-titled civil rights action on June 12, 2006. That same date, the Court notified

plaintiff in writing that the action was deficient due to his failure to pay the requisite filing

fee or, instead, submit a completed court-approved in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. In

said notice, plaintiff was advised that his failure to pay the filing fee or, alternatively, to file a

completed IFP application within thirty days, would result in dismissal of the action. Along

with said notice, plaintiff was sent a copy of the Court’s IFP application, instructions for

completing it, and a return envelope. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee nor submitted a

completed IFP application.

 Instead, on June 12, 2006, and again on June 29, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for an

“exemption.” On December 8, 2006, these motions were denied and plaintiff was again

ordered to either pay the filing fee or, alternatively, to file a completed IFP application within

Case 3:06-cv-03727-MMC Document 8 Filed 01/18/07 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

1

Plaintiff was not required to submit trust account forms. See Page v. Torrey, 201

F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2000).

2

thirty days;1 he was again cautioned that his failure to do so would result in dismissal of this

action. No response has been received from plaintiff, and he has neither paid the filing fee

nor submitted a completed IFP application. 

As more than thirty days have passed since the Court’s December 8, 2006 Order and

plaintiff has not completed the IFP application or paid the filing fee, the above-titled action is

hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 18, 2007

 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03727-MMC Document 8 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 2