Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-07827/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-07827-3/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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SANTOS MIGUEL VALENZUELA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-07827-YGR (PR) 

ORDER VACATING ORDER OF 

DISMISSAL; REOPENING ACTION; 

AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

FILE CERTIFICATE OF FUNDS 

SIGNED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER 

On November 29, 2019, Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the present pro se prisoner 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On that same date, the Clerk of the Court sent a notification to Plaintiff informing him that 

he did not pay the filing fee or file an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. Dkt. 3. The Clerk 

provided Plaintiff with a blank IFP application form, along with a return envelope, instructions, 

and a notification that the case would be dismissed if Plaintiff failed to pay the fee or file the 

completed application within twenty-eight days. 

On December 9, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a completed IFP application and his six-month 

prisoner trust account statement, but he did not include his Certificate of Funds. Dkt. 4. On that 

same date, Plaintiff declined magistrate judge jurisdiction. Dkt. 5. Thereafter, this case was 

reassigned to the undersigned judge. Dkts. 6, 7. 

On January 15, 2020, the Clerk sent a second notice to Plaintiff, informing him that his IFP 

application was deficient because of his failure to file his Certificate of Funds signed by an 

authorized officer. The Clerk further informed him that his action could not go forward until he 

filed his Certificate of Funds within twenty-eight days, and that his failure to do so would result in 

dismissal of this action. 

Case 4:19-cv-07827-YGR Document 14 Filed 03/31/20 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 

In an Order dated March 9, 2020, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice upon 

determining that more than twenty-eight days had passed and Plaintiff had not filed his Certificate 

of Funds. See Dkt. 11. However, at the same time the Court’s dismissal order was being 

processed, Plaintiff filed an extension of time request as well as another IFP application. Dks. 9, 

10. Plaintiff claimed that he was put on “suicide watch” on February 1, 2020 and that he “was 

given [his] legal mail from this Court late.” Dkt. 9 at 1. Therefore, Plaintiff requested “to 

continue [the] case.” Id. As mentioned, Plaintiff also filed another IFP application and attempted 

to submit his Certificate of Funds, but Plaintiff signed it himself instead of requesting an 

authorized officer to do so. See Dkt. 10 at 7. As mentioned, the dismissal order was already being 

processed prior to the e-filing of these aforementioned documents in the Court’s electronic case 

management filing system and, thus, it was processed before a ruling was made on Plaintiff’s 

request for an extension of time. 

Accordingly, because of this clerical mistake, the order dismissing the action and judgment 

hereby are VACATED and the Clerk is directed to reopen the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). 

However, Plaintiff’s action still cannot go forward without Plaintiff providing a valid Certificate 

of Funds. 

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file his Certificate of Funds is GRANTED. 

Dkt. 9. No later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff is directed to 

file his Certificate of Funds signed by an authorized officer. The failure to do so will result in 

dismissal of this action without any further warning to Plaintiff. 

This Order terminates Docket No. 9. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

______________________________________ 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 

United States District Judge 

March 31, 2020

Case 4:19-cv-07827-YGR Document 14 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 2