Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01786/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01786-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM CECIL THORNTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DON MORGAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01786-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

(ECF No. 26)

ORDERING REVOKING PLAINTIFF’S IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AND 

DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PAY FILING 

FEE IN FULL

(ECF No. 12)

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in a civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. He has consented to Magistrate Judge 

jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.) 

On September 20, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his IFP 

status should not be revoked because it appeared he had incurred three strikes within 

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G). (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff requested and was granted 

one extension of time to file a response. (ECF Nos. 24 & 25.) Plaintiff’s response was 

Case 1:15-cv-01786-MJS Document 27 Filed 11/08/16 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

thus due on November 7, 2016. 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s November 4, 2016 second motion to extend time to 

file a response to the order to show cause. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff states, without 

elaboration, that for “unforeseen reasons” he needs additional time to prepare his reply. 

Id. 

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause why another extension should be 

granted. His motion will therefore be denied. 

Furthermore, having received no substantive response to its order to show cause, 

the Court will revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status and direct him to pay the $400.00 filing fee in 

full within twenty-one days of this order. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 26) is DENIED; 

2. Plaintiff’s IFP status is REVOKED for incurring three strikes within the 

meaning of 28 U.S.C § 1915(G); and

3. Plaintiff must pay the $400.00 filing fee in full within twenty-one (21) days of 

the date of this order. Failure to comply will result in Plaintiff’s case being 

dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to pay the filing fee. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01786-MJS Document 27 Filed 11/08/16 Page 2 of 2