United States District Court, Central District of California
November 6, 2014
IN RE LORECE WRIGHT
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER.
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS): DISMISSAL OF APPEAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
On December 12, 2011, plaintiff-appellant Lorece Wright appealed to this Court the judgment entered against her in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. Dkt. No. 1. On October 1, 2012, an opening brief was filed on her behalf by her son, Anthony Wright, who has a separate appeal currently pending before this Court. Dkt. No. 23 at 19, 20 (signed as " Anthony Wright for Lorece Wright"). On November 9, 2012, an amended opening brief was filed in this appeal, again by Anthony Wright acting on behalf of plaintiff-appellant. Dkt. No. 35.
On November 30, 2012, the Court struck the briefs filed on plaintiff-appellant's behalf by Anthony Wright on the ground that, pursuant to California Business & Professions Code § 6125, no person may practice law in California unless that person is an active member of the State Bar. Dkt. No. 40. In that order, the Court granted plaintiff-appellant until January 2, 2013 to obtain legal counsel if she was unable to represent herself in this appeal. Id. The Court warned that failure to do so " may result in monetary sanctions or dismissal of this appeal for failure to prosecute." Id.
On December 28, 2012, plaintiff-appellant filed a " request to substitute plaintiff and send case to proper jurisdiction." Dkt. No. 45. On January 14, plaintiff-appellant filed a request for the Court to appoint an attorney or accept her signed opening brief. Dkt. No. 46. On January 17, 2013, the Court denied plaintiff-appellant's December 28, 2012 request, which the Court construed as a request for a conservatorship, which is beyond the Court's power to grant. Dkt. No. 47. That order also denied plaintiff-appellant's request for appointed counsel and reiterated that the Court would " accept briefs signed by plaintiff and den[y] acceptance of briefs signed by Anthony Wright, who may not act as her representative." Id. On August 25, 2014, plaintiff-appellant filed a " request for status hearing and defected service, " which appears to be identical to a request filed on the same day by Anthony Wright in his separate appeal. See Dkt. No. 50; see also Case No. 2:11-cv-10248-CAS, Dkt. No. 76.
Almost two years past the Court's deadline for plaintiff-appellant to secure counsel or prosecute her appeal pro se, and despite the Court's admonition that failure to do so could result in dismissal of her appeal, plaintiff-appellant has not yet filed an opening brief on her own behalf or through an attorney. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES this appeal WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.