Britt Dunn v. Navid Souferzadeh

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 29, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01721
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRITT DUNN et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01721-SB-MAR

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE NAVID SOUFERZADEH,

Defendant.

On March 6, 2023, Plaintiffs Britt Dunn, Kenzo Tokuda, Julio Rodriguez, and Victor Thomas Diaz III filed a motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction, in which they alleged that they were not provided appropriate medical treatment while in prison and requested that the Court require their doctor to prescribe them different medication. Dkt. No. 1. On March 14, 2023, the Court issued an order explaining that because Plaintiffs had not filed a complaint, their allegations had not been screened to determine whether they had stated cognizable claims, and that because no summons had been issued, the Court lacked jurisdiction over Defendant. Dkt. No. 4. Accordingly, the motion was denied without prejudice as premature. Id.

On the same day the case was filed, the Court indicated that Plaintiffs had not paid their filing fees or requested to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 2. Only Plaintiff Tokuda responded by filing a request to proceed in forma pauperis on April 27, 2023. Dkt. No. 5. On May 19, 2023, the Court postponed ruling on the request and directed Tokuda1 within 30 days to either file an operative

1 As the Court stated previously, Tokuda has no authority to pursue this action on behalf of the other inmates. See, e.g., Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, complaint—as none has yet been filed—or voluntarily dismiss the action. Dkt. No. 6. The Court warned that “[fJailure to timely file a complaint or voluntary dismissal will be deemed consent to dismissal of this action without prejudice.” □□□ at 2. More than 30 days have passed and Tokuda has failed to file an operative complaint or dismissal. The Court therefore DISMISSES this action without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: June 29, 2023 OLS Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. United States District Judge

876 (9th Cir. 1997) (non-attorney raising claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may appear pro se on his own behalf, but he has no authority to appear as an attorney for others); Newsom v. Norris, 888 F.2d 371, 381 (6th Cir. 1989) (stating that “a prisoner who initiates a civil action challenging certain conditions at a prison facility in his individual capacity is limited to asserting alleged violations of his own constitutional rights and, absent a request for class certification, lacks standing to assert the constitutional rights of other prisoners’”’).