Prasad v. County of San Mateo

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KEVIN B. PRASAD, Case No. 22-cv-02720-JST 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF 9 v. TIME; GRANTING REQUEST FOR FORMS; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al., Re: ECF No. 5 Defendants.

13 On or about May 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 ECF No. 1. That same day, the Clerk of the Court informed Plaintiff that this action was deficient because Plaintiff had not paid the filing fee or filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was instructed to respond within twenty-eight days of the date of this order. Id. Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file his in forma pauperis application, stating that San Mateo Sheriff County’s Office has lost the application that he had prepared for the Court, and that he has been unable to obtain the updated version of the in forma pauperis application. ECF No. 5. Good cause being shown, Plaintiff’s requests for an extension of time to file his in forma pauperis application and for copies of the updated in forma pauperis application are GRANTED. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff shall file his in forma pauperis application by July 5, 2022.2 The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff two copies of the Court’s in forma pauperis In Prasad v. County of San Mateo, et al., C No. 22-cv-00975, Plaintiff has stated that this action raises the same claims as C No. 22-cv-00975. Prasad v. County of San Mateo, et al., C No. 22-cv- 00975, ECF No. 8. Plaintiff is cautioned that duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious. Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988).

2 The Court may not apply Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis applications filed in other cases in this application. Failure to file an in forma pauperis application within the time provided will result in || dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff for failure to comply with a court order.

3 This order terminates ECF No. 5.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: June 3, 2022 JON S. TIGAR 7 ted States District Judge

© = 17 Z 18