IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 23, 2011
JACK CIVITILLO, PLAINTIFF,
CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANT.
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 2, 2011, the court filed findings and recommendations recommending this action be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint and a new application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis as directed. On August 15, 2011, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court will vacate the pending findings and recommendations and again order plaintiff to file the documents referred to above. Plaintiff is advised to refer to the court's May 10, 2011 order which describes the defects with his original complaint. In addition, since plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, he must now submit either the $350.00 filing fee or an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations, filed on August 2, 2011, are vacated;
2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled "Amended Complaint;" plaintiff must use the form complaint provided by the Clerk of the Court and answer each question;
3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall either submit the $350.00 filing fee or file an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner;
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By a Non-Prisoner and the form complaint for a § 1983 civil right action; and
5. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.