Jones

Jones v. Musk

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaFebruary 1, 20243:23-cv-01799California1,408 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WAYNE ELIJAH JONES, Case No.: 23-CV-1799 JLS (AHG)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

vs. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO

ELON MUSK, TESLA CO., SPACE X 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) INC., et al., 16 Defendants. (ECF No. 3) 17

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Wayne Elijah Jones’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“Mot.,” ECF No. 3). On September 22, 2023, Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF No. 1. On September 29, the Court dismissed the action because Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time of filing. See ECF No. 2. The Court notified Plaintiff that to have his case reopened, he must satisfy the filing fee requirement by paying the fee or submitting a properly supported motion to proceed…

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.