Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05430/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05430-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wesley Carroll
Plaintiff
Pennsylvania Judicial
Defendant

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESLEY CARROLL,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

PENNSYLVANIA JUDICIAL, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-5430 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

EN BANC

This pro se civil rights action was filed on November 17, 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 applications to

proceed IFP 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. 

On November 30, 2009, plaintiff filed an application to proceed IFP, but it was not on

the court’s form, despite one having been provided him with the notice of deficiency. It did

not contain all the information required by the form, most notably the “Certificate of Funds

in Inmate Account,” page five of the form, and also did not have attached a printout of

transactions in plaintiff’s prison account as required by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a)(2). In consequence, on February 11, 2010, the case was dismissed for failure to

pay the filing fee or provide a proper IFP application. 

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and a petition for en banc reconsideration on March

8, 2010. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has entered an order holding the appeal in

abeyance pending a ruling on the motion. 

Case 4:09-cv-05430-PJH Document 11 Filed 05/04/10 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

The motion goes only to the merits of plaintiff’s claims, and does not even address

the basis for the dismissal, namely failure to pay the filing fee or file a proper IFP

application. The motion (document number 6 on the docket) is DENIED. The clerk shall

forward a copy of this order to the court of appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.09\CARROLL5430.RECON.wpd 

Case 4:09-cv-05430-PJH Document 11 Filed 05/04/10 Page 2 of 2