(PC) Rajagopal v. Modesto Police Department ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GOPI RAJAGOPAL, No. 2:23-cv-2967 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MODESTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to submit 19 the appropriate affidavit in support of a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 6.) 20 Plaintiff requests an extension because he is in restricted housing as a pretrial detainee. He states 21 that he “may not be able to mail the court to process the application.” (Id.) He further states that 22 he is “asking the Court to consider an injective [sic] order to stop the criminal proceeding by the 23 Superior Court” in case number CR-22-011456. (Id.) The court notes that the instant filing 24 indicates that plaintiff is permitted to send mail while in restricted housing. However, out of an 25 abundance of caution, the undersigned will grant plaintiff an additional thirty days to submit an 26 application to proceed in forma pauperis. 27 Plaintiff is further advised that this court does not have appellate jurisdiction over rulings 28 made in a state superior court. See Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he 1 | Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal courts from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over a 2 || proceeding in ‘which a party losing in state court’ seeks ‘what in substance would be appellate 3 || review of the state judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party’s claim 4 || that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.’”) (quoting Johnson v. De Grandy, 5 || 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994), cert. denied 547 U.S. 1111 (2006)). 6 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 6) is granted; 8 2. Plaintiff shall submit a properly completed affidavit in support of a request to proceed 9 in forma pauperis within thirty days of service of this order; and 10 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 11 dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. 12 || Dated: January 25, 2024 13 1S BORAH BARNES 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 | pB:12 DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/raja2967.36ifp 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28