IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 14, 2012
WILLIAM DALE SMITH, JR., PLAINTIFF,
UNITED STATES, DEFENDANT.
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On February 24, 2012, the undersigned granted plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, but dismissed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), because the complaint is incomprehensible and it is unclear from plaintiff's complaint precisely what he is alleging and/or what relief he is seeking. Dckt. No. 5 at 3. Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended complaint, assuming he could allege a cognizable legal theory and sufficient facts in support of that cognizable legal theory. Id. at 4.
No amended complaint has yet been filed. However, on March 12, 2012, plaintiff filed a request for a hearing. Dckt. No. 6. Once again, plaintiff's filing is incomprehensible; therefore, it is unclear why plaintiff contends a hearing should be held or what issues plaintiff would seek to discuss at a hearing. Regardless, because plaintiff's complaint was dismissed, there is currently no operative complaint in this action. Accordingly, plaintiff's request for a hearing, Dckt. No. 6, is denied.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.