Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04956/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04956-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF S. HARNDEN,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

GLOVER; ROBERT AYERS; W.E.

MURRAY; A. SCRIBNER; CHUCK

TWEED; H. LIDDICOTE; V. LOPEZ,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-4956 WHA (PR) 

ORDER DENYING

RECONSIDERATION; DIRECTING

CLERK TO REFUND LATE

PAYMENT OF FILING FEE

(Docket Nos. 10, 12)

This pro se civil rights action was filed on October 19, 2009. On that same day the court

notified plaintiff he had neither paid the filing fee nor submitted an application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). A copy of the court's form for IFP applications was

provided with the notice, along with a return envelope. Plaintiff was informed that if he did not

either pay the fee or file the application within thirty days the case would be dismissed. 

Plaintiff did not respond to the notice. On November 30, 2009, the case was dismissed without

prejudice. 

On December 21, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration in which he states

that he would like to have another inmate, named David Short, pay his filing fee. On December

29, 2009, the filing fee was paid by Mr. Short, and on the same date, plaintiff filed another

motion for reconsideration stating that he would like to have Mr. Short pay the filing fee. 

Plaintiff does not explain in his motions for reconsideration why he did not pay the filing fee or

comply with the IFP deficiency notice in a timely manner, nor does he explain why he did not

Case 3:09-cv-04956-WHA Document 7 Filed 01/08/10 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

2

seek an extension of time to do so. As plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or file a completed IFP

application in a timely manner, and he never requested an extension of time in which to do so,

the dismissal of this action was not in error. Consequently, plaintiff’s requests for

reconsideration (docket numbers 5 and 6) are DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s filing fee may be paid by other individuals, including Mr. Short, but only

provided that it is paid by the deadline for such payment. As this matter has been dismissed and

closed, and plaintiff has not established grounds for reconsideration of said dismissal, Mr.

Short’s payment of the filing fee is not timely. Accordingly, the clerk shall return the funds

paid by Mr. Short in this matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.09\HARNDEN4956.REC.wpd 

Case 3:09-cv-04956-WHA Document 7 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 2