(PC) Foust v. Consumer Attorney Marketing Service
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CARL FOUST, Case No. 2:20-cv-02553-WBS-JDP (PC) Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
CONSUMER ATTORNEY MARKETING
SERVICE,
15 Defendant. 16 The Clerk of Court closed this case on January 3, 2022. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff has since submitted a filing seeking refund of the filing fee. This filing does not appear to be one contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure. The filings will therefore be disregarded. Plaintiff is notified that the court will not respond to future filings in this action that are not authorized by either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s filing, ECF No. 39, is denied.
24
1 The assigned district judge referred this matter to the undersigned. ECF No. 39. 26 2 The court granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, which requires him to pay the filing fee in monthly installments. See Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir.…