Hallal

Hallal v. Qtik

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 1, 20211:21-cv-00525California694 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 JEANLOUISE HALLAL and BRENT ALAN Case No. 1:21-cv-00525-NONE-SKO BRIGNER,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiffs, TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO

v. PROSECUTE

EABAL QTIK, et al.,

Defendants. _____________________________________/ 13 14 On March 26, 2021, Plaintiffs JeanLouise Hallal and Brent Alan Brigner (“Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se, filed the complaint in this case against Defendants. (Doc. 1.) On March 31, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiffs to either pay the $402 filing fee or submit applications to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code section 1915, within 30 days of the date of service of the order, as Plaintiffs had done neither at the time of the filing of the complaint. (Doc. 2.) When served at Plaintiffs’ address of record, the March 31, 2021 order was returned as undeliverable on April 21, 2021. Local Rule 183(b) provides that: A party appearing in propria persona…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.