Nelson Romero v. M. Mauger ( 2024 )

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JS-6 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. EDCV 23-2146-MWF (KS) Date: March 4, 2024 Title: Nelson Romero v. M. Mauger, et al. Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge Deputy Clerk: Court Reporter: Rita Sanchez Not Reported Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None Present None Present Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILING TO FILE A COMPLETE REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS OR PAY FILING FEE, AND FOR FAILING TO FOLLOW COURT ORDERS All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States must pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). On December 11, 2023, the Court postponed ruling on Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“Request”) because it was incomplete. (Docket No. 6). The Court directed Plaintiff to either: (1) refile a fully completed Request and a one- page statement; or (2) pay the full filing fee. (Id.). The Court warned that if Plaintiff did not comply within 30 days, the case would be dismissed without prejudice. (Id.). After the deadline passed, Plaintiff filed another incomplete Request that failed to answer certain questions and did not include the one-page statement. (Docket No. 7). Accordingly, on January 24, 2024, the Court postponed ruling on the Request another 30 days and again directed Plaintiff to either: (1) refile a fully completed Request and the one-page statement; or (2) pay the full filing fee. (Docket No. 9). The Court issued its same warning that if Plaintiff did not comply, the case would be dismissed without prejudice. (Id.). ______________________________________________________________________________ CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. EDCV 23-2146-MWF (KS) Date: March 4, 2024 Title: Nelson Romero v. M. Mauger, et al. On February 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a largely incomprehensible response mentioning war with China, Russia, “or the cartel,” along with other irrelevant statements, and appears to indicate that he will pay the filing fee “next time[] to contribute to the community.” (Docket No. 10). Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to file a complete request to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee, and for failing to adequately comply with any of the Court’s orders. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995); Allen v. United States Dist. Ct. Dist. of Nevada, 2022 WL 16702429, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 25, 2022) (dismissing § 1983 action where plaintiff failed to obtain in forma pauperis status or pay filing fee); Jeffrey H. v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 2019 WL 2870082, at *2 (D. Or. July 3, 2019) (dismissing for failing to prosecute and comply with court orders where plaintiff failed to follow scheduling rules and had taken no action in response to order to show cause). IT IS SO ORDERED. ______________________________________________________________________________