Dorado

Dorado v. Crumb

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaDecember 1, 20203:20-cv-01936California1,069 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANIEL DORADO, Case No.: 3:20-cv-1936-JAH-LL Booking #19778496,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

Plaintiff, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS vs. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

AND DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

CATHERINE CRUMB; JOHN FAILING TO PREPAY FILING

SULLIVAN; JESSICA COTTO; CITY FEES REQUIRED BY

OF SAN DIEGO; COUNTY OF SAN 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

DIEGO,

18 Defendants. [ECF No. 2] 19 20 Plaintiff Daniel Dorado, while incarcerated at the George Bailey Detention Facility (“GBDF”) located in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a Complaint pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff later filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (See FAC, ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time he submitted his Complaint, but instead filed Motion…

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.