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

1

The transfer order states plaintiff filed with his action a request to proceed IFP but

that the transferring court would not rule on such request. (Docket No. 3.) As noted,

however, the record of the case shows plaintiff paid a partial filing fee and did not file a

request to proceed IFP.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAN M. HAMMOND,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR

COURT, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-0699 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

TO REOPEN ACTION AND

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS;

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

(Docket Nos. 9 & 10)

On January 27, 2009, plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

instant civil rights action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California. (Docket No. 1.) Upon so doing, plaintiff paid a $155.00 partial filing fee. (See

Docket entry dated January 29, 2009.) Plaintiff did not file an application seeking leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On February 11, 2009, the case was transferred to the

Northern District.1

 

When the case arrived in the Northern District, the Court notified plaintiff in writing

that the action was deficient due to plaintiff’s failure to pay the $350.00 filing fee in full. 

Specifically, in said notice, plaintiff was advised that he had made only a partial payment of

$155.00, and that he must pay the balance of $195.00. (Docket No. 6.) Plaintiff was further

Case 3:09-cv-00699-MMC Document 11 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 3
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

advised that his failure to pay the balance of the filing fee, within thirty days, would result in

dismissal of the action. (Id.) When more than thirty days had passed after the deficiency

notice was sent to plaintiff, and plaintiff had not paid the balance of the filing fee or

otherwise responded to the notice, the Court, by order filed April 3, 2009, dismissed the

action without prejudice. (Docket No. 7.)

Approximately two months later, plaintiff filed a request that the Court reinstate the

action, on the ground that he has been transferred to another prison and, consequently, has

not had sufficient time to comply with the Court’s order to pay the balance of the filing fee. 

(Docket No. 9.) Together with his request, plaintiff filed an application to proceed IFP on a

form used by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (Docket

No. 10.)

Plaintiff’s requests to reopen the instant case and to proceed IFP will be denied for the

reason the Court is unable to ascertain from plaintiff’s filings whether he is asserting he is

financially able to pay the remainder of the filing fee but needs more time to do so, or is

claiming he is financially unable to pay the remainder of the filing fee and is seeking leave to

proceed IFP. 

The Court, however, will provide plaintiff with one further opportunity either (1) to

pay the $195.00 balance of the filing fee, at which point the Court will order the action

reopened, or (2) if plaintiff is unable to pay the $195.00 balance, to submit a completed

Northern District of California court-approved Prisoner’s In Forma Pauperis Application,

including a Certificate of Funds in Prisoner’s Account completed and signed by an

authorized officer at the prison, and a copy of plaintiff’s prisoner trust account statement

showing transactions for the last six months. If plaintiff elects the second of the above two

options, and if, upon receipt of the requisite documents, the Court determines plaintiff is

entitled to proceed IFP with respect to the $195.00 balance, the Court will order the action

reopened; if, however, the Court determines plaintiff is not entitled to proceed IFP, the action

will not be reopened. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s requests to reopen the instant

Case 3:09-cv-00699-MMC Document 11 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

action and to proceed IFP are hereby DENIED. Within thirty (30) days of the date this order

is filed, plaintiff shall comply with the Court’s directions as set forth above. Should plaintiff

fail to do so, the action will not be reopened. 

The Clerk shall send plaintiff a copy of the Northern District’s court-approved

prisoner’s IFP application, instructions for completing it, and a return envelope. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 9 and 10.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 10, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00699-MMC Document 11 Filed 03/10/10 Page 3 of 3