Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fresquez v. Mercy Hospital

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 30, 2010

LOUIS RICHARD FRESQUEZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MERCY HOSPITAL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(DOC 25)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil action against defendant correctional officials and Mercy Hospital. Pending before the court is Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to pay the filing fee.

This action was initiated by civil complaint filed on November 7, 2008. Plaintiff filed the complaint pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 et seq. Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On November 17, 2008, an order to show cause was entered, finding that Plaintiff had, on 3 prior occasions, brought civil actions challenging the conditions of his confinement, and that all 3 actions were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The order to show cause noted that the complaint failed to set forth any factual allegations. Plaintiff was therefore ordered to show cause why he should not be denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis under the "three strikes" provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The order to show cause erroneously noted that Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff failed to file a response to the order to show cause, and on June 29, 2009, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending denial of Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). On September 11, 2009, the findings and recommendations were adopted. The order adopting the findings and recommendations erroneously directed that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

On February 23, 2010, an order was entered, granting Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration in part and re-opening this case. The February 23, 2010, order noted that Plaintiff could not proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to submit the $350 filing fee, in full.

On March 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a document titled as a motion for the court to order the Warden at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility to provide Plaintiff with law library access. Plaintiff contends that he can not comply with the court's order without gaining access to the law library. Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to comply with the order of February 23, 2010. Plaintiff does not need law library access in order to comply with the order of February 23, 2010. In order to comply, Plaintiff must simply submit the filing fee. Plaintiff must submit the $350 filing fee, in full, or suffer dismissal of this action pursuant to Local Rule 110 for failure to obey a court order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to pay the filing fee is granted. Plaintiff is granted an extension of time of thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to submit the $350 filing fee. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action. No further extensions of time will be granted absent good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100330

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.