Ritchie

Ritchie v. Hill

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaDecember 21, 20233:23-cv-02163California911 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOAQUIN RITCHIE, Case No.: 23-CV-2163 JLS (VET)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

v. RENEWED APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT

ALLYSON HILL and GOLDEN

WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR

CREDIT UNION,

COSTS Defendants. 16 (ECF No. 6) 17 18

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Joaquin Ritchie’s Renewed Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Renewed IFP Appl.,” ECF No. 6). In its December 5, 2023 Order (the “Order,” ECF No. 3), the Court denied Plaintiff’s Prior IFP Application (“Prior Appl.,” ECF No. 2) and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1) for failing to pay the required filing fee. Having carefully considered Plaintiff’s submissions and the law, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Renewed IFP Application. / / / / / / DISCUSSION All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or…

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.