Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00798-0/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 RE: IN FORMA PAUPERIS

APPLICATION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 6, 9

On February 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) 

before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. Dkt. No. 2. This application was denied with 

leave to amend on March 3, 2016. See Dkt. No. 6. In denying plaintiff’s application, Judge 

Westmore concluded that plaintiff had filed an incomplete application; specifically, 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.

Id. 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. To date, no amended 

Case 3:16-cv-00798-SI Document 13 Filed 04/13/16 Page 1 of 2
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

application has been filed.

“In general, filing an action IFP is a privilege, not a right.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 

1113, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff was given over four weeks to cure the deficiencies in his 

application. He has failed to do so. His amended application, should he choose to file it, is 

untimely and therefore DENIED.

That being said, once an IFP application has been denied, plaintiff is entitled to a 

reasonable time to pay the filing fee. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 

2015). While plaintiff was previously put on notice of his obligation to pay the fee should he be 

unable to amend his application, the Court will afford plaintiff one additional week from the 

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

this April 20, 2016 deadline. If an extension is sought, plaintiff must provide the Court with good 

cause to grant the extension and a reasonable date for payment of the fee. The Court retains the 

discretion to dismiss plaintiff’s case should he fail to satisfactorily comply with these 

requirements. 

Additionally, this Court recently issued an order setting a status conference for June 10, 

2016. Dkt. No. 12. In that order, this Court directed plaintiff that, if he had “not been granted 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, then . . . [he was ordered] to comply with the service 

requirements of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [.]” Plaintiff was further cautioned 

that, “Failure to follow the procedures set forth in this order may result, under Rule 4(m), in 

dismissal of your case.” Id. The Court underscores for plaintiff the importance of these and other 

deadlines to ensure the timely prosecution of his case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00798-SI Document 13 Filed 04/13/16 Page 2 of 2