Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lewis v. Los Angeles County

United States District Court, C.D. California

January 2, 2020

TERRY LEESHAWN LEWIS, Plaintiff,
v.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, et al., Defendant.

          ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

          JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff Terry Leeshawn Lewis (“Plaintiff”), proceeding as a self-represented party, constructively filed[1] a Complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint was filed in the District of Oregon together with an Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“Application”) and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (“Motion”). Electronic Case Filing Numbers (“ECF Nos.”) 1-3. On September 11, 2019, the case was transferred from the District of Oregon to this District. ECF No. 5, Transfer Order. In Plaintiff's Application, he failed to provide a certified copy of his inmate trust fund statement for the prior six months. See ECF No. 1, Application. Plaintiff's Application was conditionally granted, in an Order that directed Plaintiff to file a copy of his trust account by October 16, 2019. ECF No. 12, Order Conditionally Granting IFP Application.

         On October 18, 2019, an Order issued that dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend (“ODLA”). ECF No. 14, ODLA. The ODLA instructed that if Plaintiff elected to pursue this action he was to file an amended complaint [(“First Amended Complaint” or “FAC”)] within 21 days of the service date of the ODLA. That Order included the following language:

Plaintiff is cautioned that if Plaintiff does not comply with the instructions enumerated above, the Court may recommend that this action be dismissed with or without prejudice for failure to state a claim, prosecute and/or obey Court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Id. at 24-26 (emphasis in original).

         Since the ODLA was issued, Plaintiff has filed an additional copy of his trust account and a request to submit a “supplemental complaint.” See ECF Nos. 15, 16.

         On October 30, 2019, an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) was issued, which was set for November 18, 2019, as to why Plaintiff's request should not be denied and why this action should not be dismissed for failing to comply with orders of the Court. ECF No. 17, OSC. The OSC stated that Plaintiff could satisfy its terms by either filing the FAC in the manner described in Section IV of the ODLA, or by providing an explanation as to why he could not amend his Complaint in the manner described in Section IV of the ODLA [ECF No. 14, OLDA at 24-26]. Id. The OSC once again cautioned Plaintiff that a failure to comply with its terms would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and to comply with orders of the Court. Id. Plaintiff did not respond.

         On December 5, 2019, a Final Order to Show Cause (“Final OSC”) was issued. ECF No. 18, Final OSC. It directed that Plaintiff:

either (a) advise the Court that he does not desire to pursue this action; (b) if Plaintiff does desire to pursue this action, show good cause in writing, if any exists, why Plaintiff has not timely filed with the Court his FAC, and why the Court should not recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's prior Order; (c) state that he wishes to proceed in the matter based on the allegations in the original complaint; or (d) file a FAC.

Id. at 1 (emphasis added).

         The Final OSC stated that Plaintiff had until December 19, 2019, to comply with its terms by choosing one of the options that was provided. Id. The Final OSC cautioned that if Plaintiff failed to comply with its terms, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), the Magistrate Judge would recommend that the matter be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute or comply with orders of the Court. Id. at 1-2.

         As of December 26, 2019, Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, as ordered, or request an extension of time to do so. Given Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this matter diligently and to follow Court orders, this action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and Local Rule (“L.R.”) 41-1.

         II. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.