Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01530/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01530-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN HEDGPETH, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

1:07cv1530 OWW DLB 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF UNTIL

APRIL 15, 2008, TO FILE OBJECTIONS IN

THE FORM OF THE FILING FEE 

(Document 12)

Plaintiff James E. Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action

filed on October 22, 2007. His complaint concerns an allegedly incorrect charge to his prison

trust account for eyeglasses. 

On October, 31, 2007, the Court issued an order finding Plaintiff ineligible to proceed in

forma pauperis and requiring him to pay the $350.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days. On

January 17, 2008, the Court granted Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days to pay the filing fee

pursuant to the October 31, 2007, order.

On February 26, 2008, the Court issued Findings and Recommendation that the action be

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee. The Court also explained that Plaintiff has

attempted to argue that he is now in imminent danger of serious harm and has repeatedly

attempted to circumvent the October 31, 2007, ruling. Plaintiff was granted thirty (30) days to

object to the Findings and Recommendation.

On March 12, 2008, instead of submitting objections, Plaintiff filed a document entitled,

“Notice of Motion and Motion for an Extension of Time to File Objections...” Although he

Case 1:07-cv-01530-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 03/26/08 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

conclusorily requests an extension of time “to do proper research to file a proper” objection, a

majority of his document attempts to put forth new causes of action. For example, he now

contends that he was “deliberately mistreated during the bus ride here,” and attempts to state

causes of action for racial discrimination, denial of his right to trial by jury, violation of his Fifth

Amendment rights, and denial of his right to access the courts. 

At this stage in the proceeding, Plaintiff is not entitled to submit an amended complaint. 

Rather, in order to discharge the Findings and Recommendation and proceed with his action,

Plaintiff must submit the $350.00 filing fee. This is the only way he can proceed. Although

he has stated numerous times that he has no problem doing so, or has in fact done so, the Court

has not received the filing fee. In his latest filing, he states, “On 3/4/08, plaintiff will submit the

trust withdrawal slip to the trust office to process the $350.00 dollar filing fee as an illustration.” 

Plaintiff has had ample time to submit the filing fee. However, in a final attempt to allow

Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s order, the Court will give Plaintiff until April 15, 2008, to

submit the filing fee to the Court. The February 26, 2008, Findings and Recommendations

remain in effect, but the time for objecting in the form of paying the filing fee, will be

extended. If the Court does not receive the filing fee by April 15, 2008, the Findings and

Recommendation will be adopted and the action will be dismissed. The court is only

granting Plaintiff this extension of time to allow sufficient time for the prison system to process

the March 4, 2008, request, if in fact one was made. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 24, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01530-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 2