Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01447/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01447-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Anthony Pastor
Plaintiff
Woodmont RES
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

MICHAEL ANTHONY PASTOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

WOODMONT RES,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01447-KAW 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DISMISS CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE; ORDER REASSIGNING 

CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE

On March 30, 2015, Plaintiff Michael Anthony Pastor initiated this action and filed an 

application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (Dkt. No. 2.) On April 8, 2015, the Court denied 

Plaintiff’s IFP application, because he represented that he received a combined $1,238.00 per 

week in state worker’s compensation and disability insurance payments. Id. at 2. Thus, the Court 

ordered that Plaintiff pay the filing fee on or before April 27, 2015. (Dkt. No. 4.)

On April 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of his IFP 

application. (Dkt. No. 5.) Therein, Plaintiff stated that his annual income is less than $25,000, that 

he provides for a teenage daughter, and that, since October 2014, his “income has been $536.00 

per week from State Disability Insurance alone.” Id. at 1. Since Plaintiff filed his motion for 

reconsideration without leave of court, the motion was denied. (Dkt. No. 6.) Notwithstanding, the 

Court gave Plaintiff permission to file an amended IFP application on or before May 29, 2015. 

Plaintiff was advised that any failure to file an amended IFP application by that date, or pay the 

$400.00 filing fee, may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.

Plaintiff did not file an amended IFP application or pay the filing fee as ordered. On June 

22, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause directing Plaintiff to file an amended IFP 

application or pay the filing fee, and explain why he did not comply with the May 29, 2015 

Case 3:15-cv-01447-JD Document 8 Filed 07/27/15 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

deadline. (Dkt. No. 7.) Plaintiff was advised that any failure to complete both tasks by July 2, 

2015 may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.

To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause, he has not paid the filing 

fee, nor has he consented to the undersigned. Therefore, the Court reassigns this action to a 

district judge and recommends that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 

pay the filing fee.

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge 

within 14 days of being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the district court’s order. IBEW Local 595 Trust Funds v. ACS Controls Corp., No. C-10-

5568, 2011 WL 1496056, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2011).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Dated: July 27, 2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01447-JD Document 8 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 2