Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04902/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04902-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas H. Spitters
Plaintiff
Unknown
Defendant

Document Text:

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

THOMAS H. SPITTERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-04902-JSC 

AMENDED FURTHER ORDER RE: 

PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

APPLICATION

Plaintiff Thomas H. Spitters, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action against unknown 

defendant(s) on October 23, 2015. His complaint was accompanied by an in forma pauperis 

application. (Dkt. No. 2.) Because the application was incomplete, the Court denied it without 

prejudice to re-filing a completed in forma pauperis application, a copy of which was attached to 

the Court’s Order. (Dkt. No. 4.) The Court also sent Plaintiff a copy of the form for consenting or 

declining to consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. (Dkt. No. 6.) Subsequently, Plaintiff 

filed a series of documents requesting acknowledgment of his filings, listing names of individuals, 

asking questions regarding the paperwork that was mailed to him, requesting original signatures in 

lieu of facsimile signatures on documents sent by the Court, and returning copies of the paperwork 

sent by the Court including the blank in forma pauperis application and the consent or declination 

form. On December 1, 2015, the Court issued an Order addressing these filings and giving 

Plaintiff until December 21, 2015 to file a complete in forma pauperis application.

To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order or otherwise communicated with 

the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be given one final opportunity—until January 19, 2016—

to submit a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. Failure to do 

so by January 18 may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. 

Case 4:15-cv-04902-PJH Document 18 Filed 01/06/16 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

Civ. Pro. 41(b).

Plaintiff is reminded that because this action has been randomly assigned to the 

undersigned magistrate judge, by statute Plaintiff must affirmatively consent to the jurisdiction of 

a magistrate judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff may either consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate 

judge or decline to consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Plaintiff may withhold his 

consent without substantive adverse consequences, but he must either decline or consent by 

completing the attached consent form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-04902-PJH Document 18 Filed 01/06/16 Page 2 of 2