Clifford Loyer v. Stirling Price
This text of Clifford Loyer v. Stirling Price (Clifford Loyer v. Stirling Price) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 2:23-cv-04509-FWS-RAO Date: August 17, 2023 Title: Clifford Loyer v. Stirling Price et al.
Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Melissa H. Kunig N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present Not Present
PROCEEDINGS: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION
On June 7, 2023, Plaintiff Clifford C. Loyer (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint. (Dkt. 1.) On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees (“IFP Request”). (Dkt. 5.) On July 5, 2023, the court postponed ruling on Plaintiff’s IFP Request and ordered that Plaintiff submit a certified copy of a trust fund statement for the last six months within thirty (30) days of the Order, or by August 5, 2023. (Dkt. 5.) As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed any additional documents supplying a certified copy of a trust fund statement. (See generally Dkt.)
Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than September 18, 2023, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff may discharge the Order to Show Cause by filing a certified copy of a trust fund statement for the last six months that complies with the court’s July 5, 2023, Order. Failure to adequately comply with the court’s order may result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[C]ourts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (“It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”). ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 2:23-cv-04509-FWS-RAO Date: August 17, 2023 Title: Clifford Loyer v. Stirling Price et al.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku
____________________________________________________________________________
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Clifford Loyer v. Stirling Price, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clifford-loyer-v-stirling-price-cacd-2023.