Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00299/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00299-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

AARON STRIBLING,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-00299-YGR (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

On January 17, 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 notice to Plaintiff, 

informing him that his action could not go forward until he paid the filing fee or filed a completed 

prisoner’s in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. The Clerk sent Plaintiff a blank IFP application 

and told him that he must pay the fee or return the completed application within twenty-eight days 

or his action would be dismissed. 

Thereafter, the Court granted Plaintiff three extensions of time to pay the filing fee or file a 

completed IFP application in Orders dated March 12, 2019, May 24, 2019, and June 28, 2019. 

Dkts. 6, 10, 12. In all aforementioned Orders, the Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to pay the 

fee or return the completed application shall result in the dismissal of this action without 

prejudice. 

The Court notes that when it granted Plaintiff’s first extension request on March 12, 2019, 

he had also requested for a Court Order directing prison officials pay the filing fee with his funds, 

in which he claimed that SVSP prison officials were “unwilling[] to release or remove money off 

[his] books.” See Dkt. 2. However, in its March 12, 2019 Order, the Court found that such a 

claim was not supported by any evidence showing such conduct. Dkt. 6 at 1-2. The Court 

determined that Plaintiff had “not shown a sufficient reason for this Court to interfere in the dayto-day operations of the prison.” Id. at 1 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-86 (1987); 

Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1981) (courts should avoid enmeshing 

themselves in minutiae of prison operations in name of constitution)). 

Case 4:19-cv-00299-YGR Document 13 Filed 09/24/19 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

Prior to being granted his second extension, Plaintiff claimed that he was “attempting to have 

the filing fee paid by prison staff through a trust withdrawal slip g[iven] to them by [Plaintiff] that they 

took and made go to the abyss.” Dkt. 9. at 9. The Court noted in its May 24, 2019 Order that Plaintiff 

had submitted evidence showing that SVSP prison officials were attempting to process his request to 

have his trust withdrawal slips signed. Dkt. 10 at 2-3 (citing Dkt. 9 at 2). Thus, the Court found that 

Plaintiff had still “not shown a sufficient reason for this Court to interfere in the day-to-day operations 

of the prison.” Id. at 3 (citing Turner, 482 U.S. at 84-86; Wright, 642 F.2d at 1132. Thus, the Court 

denied Plaintiff’s second request for a Court Order directing prison officials pay the filing fee with his 

funds. Id. As mentioned, Plaintiff was instead granted a second extension of time to pay the filing 

fee or file a completed IFP application. See id. However, instead of doing so, Plaintiff filed 

another motion entitled, “If Filing Fee Still Not Paid Yet Then Motion for Extension of Time,” 

which was construed as his third request for an extension of time. See Dkt. 11. Plaintiff claimed

that he had “tried again to have prison officials send a check/answer in [his] name to this court to 

pay the filing fee [but he] do[es]n’t know if they did . . . .” Id. at 1. Plaintiff added that if the fee 

had not been paid, then he requested “an extension of time to put this case off for a year.” Id. The 

Court denied Plaintiff’s request for a one-year extension as unwarranted, and granted him a 

twenty-eight day extension of time to pay the filing fee or provide a completed prisoner IFP 

application form. Dkt. 12 at 1. The Court further added as follows: “. . . this is the third and final 

extension in this case. No further extensions of time will be granted in this case absent 

extraordinary circumstances.” Id. 

The most recent deadline for Plaintiff to pay the fee or return the completed application 

was July 26, 2019. That deadline has since passed, and Plaintiff has neither paid the fee or filed a 

completed IFP application. He has not communicated with the Court since June 25, 2019, in 

which he requested for a one-year extension of time. See Dkt. 11. Accordingly, this action is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending 

motions and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

September 24, 2019

Case 4:19-cv-00299-YGR Document 13 Filed 09/24/19 Page 2 of 2