Gould v. Chapman
Gould v. Chapman
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
4 STEVEN ERIC GOULD, Case No. 2:21-cv-02022-APG-NJK
5 Plaintiff ORDER
6 v.
7 TRAVIS CHAPMAN, et al.,
8 Defendants
9 10 I. DISCUSSION 11 Plaintiff initiated this case with a civil rights complaint and an old application to proceed 12 in forma pauperis. Docket Nos. 1, 1-1. On November 15, 2021, this Court ordered Plaintiff to 13 file a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP application"), including 14 current financial information, or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action - on or before January 15 11, 2022. Docket No. 3. On January 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order to process 16 payment. Docket No. 4. On February 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed exhibits to his motion. Docket No. 17 5. The exhibits indicate that Plaintiff’s request that the Nevada Department of Corrections 18 (“NDOC”) forward payment for the filing fee in this case was denied because Plaintiff failed to 19 provide a case number. Id. at 2. Plaintiff appears to indicate in a grievance form that he did 20 provide the case number. Id. at 3. 21 The Court cannot direct payment from NDOC; rather, Plaintiff must request payment from 22 NDOC. As such, Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to process his payment is denied. However, as 23 it appears that the payment was not made due to an error, either on the part of Plaintiff or on the 24 part of NDOC, the Court will grant Plaintiff one final opportunity to either pay the full $402 25 filing fee or submit a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis to the Court, on or 26 before May 16, 2022. See Henderson v. Duncan,
779 F.2d 1421, 1424(9th Cir. 1986) (providing 27 that “district court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before finally dismissing a 28 case but must explore possible and meaningful alternatives”). 1| IL. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for the Court to process his payment, Docket No. 4, is DENIED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court will send Plaintiff the approved 5 | IFP application by an inmate, as well as the document entitled information and instructions for 6 | filing an in forma pauperis application. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before May 16, 2022, Plaintiff must either: (1) 8 | file a fully complete IFP application, on the correct form with complete financial attachments in 9] compliance with
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); or (2) pay the full $402 fee for filing a civil action (which 10 | includes the $350 filing fee and the $52 administrative fee). 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, this 12 | case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice for Plaintiff to refile the case with the Court, 13 | under a new case number, when Plaintiff is able to submit a fully complete application to proceed 14 | in forma pauperis or pay the full $402 filing fee for a civil action. 15 DATED: March 17, 2022
17 NANCY SROPPE 48 UNITED'SPATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-2-
Reference
- Status
- Unknown