From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Felix v. San Jose Police Dep't

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Mar 25, 2024
24-cv-00628 BLF (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2024)

Opinion

24-cv-00628 BLF

03-25-2024

DANIEL FELIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAN JOSE POLICE DEPT., Defendant.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL

BETH LABSON FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On February 2, 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. No. 3. On the same date, the Clerk sent Plaintiff a notice that IFP application was deficient because he did not submit a Certificate of Funds in Prisoner's Account completed and signed by an authorized prison officer. Dkt. No. 5. Plaintiff was provided with another blank IFP application and postage-paid envelope, and advised to respond within twenty-eight days to avoid dismissal. Id.

The deadline for responding to the Clerk's notice regarding the deficient IFP application has passed, and Plaintiffs have failed to file the necessary document to complete the IFP application or pay the filing fee. Id. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee.

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Felix v. San Jose Police Dep't

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Mar 25, 2024
24-cv-00628 BLF (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2024)
Case details for

Felix v. San Jose Police Dep't

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL FELIX, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAN JOSE POLICE DEPT., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Mar 25, 2024

Citations

24-cv-00628 BLF (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2024)