Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06370/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06370-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Motel 6
Defendant
Jerry Thompson
Plaintiff

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MOTEL 6,

Defendant. /

No. C-07-06370 (EDL)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On January 29, 2008, the Court issued an order deferring ruling on Plaintiff’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Because Plaintiff omitted certain information from that

application (the present balance in his bank account and present cash assets), the Court ordered

Plaintiff to provide the Court with that information no later than February 18, 2008, so that the Court

could rule on his application. The Court made multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact counsel

regarding the status of this requested information. In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond

regarding the two clerk’s notices regarding consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate

Judge. Accordingly, on April 3, 2008 the Court issued an order to show cause why Plaintiff’s case

should not be dismissed. That order outlined Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his case as well as the

venue problems apparent from Plaintiff’s complaint. Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel

appeared for the April 22, 2008 show cause hearing.

///

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-06370-WHA Document 9 Filed 04/24/08 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

Accordingly, because Plaintiff’s IFP application remains incomplete, and because venue

appears to be improper, the Court recommends denying the IFP request and dismissing the case for

improper venue and for failure to prosecute.

Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within ten

(10) business days after being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Civil

Local Rule 72-3 . Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court's order. 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: April 24, 2008

______________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-06370-WHA Document 9 Filed 04/24/08 Page 2 of 2