Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04241/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04241-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH BATCHELDER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FEDERAL BUREAU PRISON,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-04241 CRB

ORDER

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in federal court without prepayment

of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to pay

such fees or give security therefor. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff has submitted the

required documentation, and it is evident from his application that his assets and income are

insufficient to enable plaintiff to prosecute the action.

Viewing plaintiff’s application in isolation, it appears that he should be allowed to

proceed IFP. A court is under a continuing duty, however, to dismiss a case whenever it

determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-- (iii). The judge to whom this case was initially

assigned previously dismissed plaintiff’s complaint because the court was “unable to

Case 3:05-cv-04241-CRB Document 22 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\4241\orderreamendment.wpd 2

determine either the facts upon which plaintiff’s lawsuit is based or the legal claims that

plaintiff wishes to pursue.” 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed October 31, 2005, fares no better. Plaintiff

appears to making an employment related claim pursuant to 41 U.S.C. section 1981, yet it is

impossible to decipher what conduct plaintiff alleges violated that statute and when that

conduct occurred. Accordingly, the Court shall give plaintiff one final chance to state a

claim. On or before December 9, 2005, plaintiff shall file a statement, not to exceed two

double-spaced pages, that clearly identifies (1) the law under which he brings his claims, (2)

the conduct which he is challenging and the reason or reasons such conduct was unlawful,

and (3) the remedy he is seeking, that is, what he wants the Court to order. Plaintiff is

warned that his failure to comply with this Order will result in denial of motion to proceed in

forma pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Nov. 21, 2005

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04241-CRB Document 22 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 2