Hanh Thi My Do v. MLG assessment Recovery

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 7, 2024
• Docket: 8:23-cv-00553
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:23-cv-00553-FWS-DFM Date: February 7, 2024 Title: Hanh Thi My Do v. MLG assessment Recovery 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 Defendant:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: ORDER STRIKING FURTHER POST-JUDGMENT FILING [36] AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: IMPOSITION OF PRE- FILING RESTRICTION

The court is in receipt of a document Plaintiff filed dated January 26, 2024. (Dkt. 36.) This case was closed on May 18, 2023. (Dkt. 15.) The court reiterates that Plaintiff’s continued filings after the closure of this case are improper. Accordingly, the court STRIKES the Plaintiff’s filing dated January 26, 2024 (Dkt. 36). See In re Hartford Litig. Cases, 642 F. App’x 733, 736 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirming district court’s order striking from the docket documents parties attempted to file after case was closed); Davis v. Adler, 765 F. App’x 400, 401 (9th Cir. 2019) (same).

Plaintiff has three times previously attempted to file documents in this case after it was closed, which the court struck on July 20, 2023, January 8, 2024, and January 23, 2024. (Dkts. 28, 33, 35.) In both of its January orders striking the documents, the court advised Plaintiff that continuing to improperly file documents in this case after its closure may result in the court directing the clerk of court to reject any further filings from Plaintiff in this specific case. (Dkt. 33 at 1 (citing Patel v. Miller, 2021 WL 2224373, at *1 (9th Cir. May 18, 2021); Dkt. 35 at 1 (citing Patel, 2021 WL 2224373, at *1).) Despite these repeated warnings, Plaintiff has continued to improperly file documents in this case while it remains closed. Accordingly, because Plaintiff continues to improperly attempt to file documents in this case after its closure despite repeated admonishments from the court that the court would impose prefiling ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 8:23-cv-00553-FWS-DFM Date: February 7, 2024 Title: Hanh Thi My Do v. MLG assessment Recovery et al. restrictions if Plaintiff continues to do so, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, why the court should not instruct the clerk of court to reject further filings from Plaintiff in this case. See Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469-71 (9th Cir. 1990); 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Plaintiff is ORDERED and DIRECTED to submit a response to the court’s order to show cause on or before March 6, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________________________________________________