LaToya L. Adams v. Dominick A. Gallegos

C.D. California

LaToya L. Adams v. Dominick A. Gallegos

DecidedApril 24, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-01656

StatusUnknown

This text of LaToya L. Adams v. Dominick A. Gallegos (LaToya L. Adams v. Dominick A. Gallegos) 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.

Bluebook

LaToya L. Adams v. Dominick A. Gallegos, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 10 LATOYA L. ADAMS, Case No. CV 23-1656-CBM (AGR) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 13 DOMINICK A. GALLEGOS, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 14 Defendant. COURT ORDER

15 16 On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Dkt. 1), along with a request 17 to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2). Because Plaintiff requested leave to proceed 18 in forma pauperis in this action, the Court screened the Complaint to determine 19 whether the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief 20 may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 21 such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 22 On March 9, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma 23 pauperis without prejudice and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. 24 (Dkt. 8 (the “March 9, 2023 Order”).) The Court allowed Plaintiff thirty (30) days 25 in which to file an amended complaint and a renewed request to proceed in forma 26 pauperis. (Id.). The Court warned Plaintiff that a failure to timely file an amended 27 complaint in conformity with the Court’s March 9, 2023 Order may result in 1 More than 30 days have now passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended 2 complaint or otherwise prosecuted this case or complied with the Court’s March 9, 3 2023 Order. 4 Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 5 for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s March 9, 6 2023 Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 7 626, 630-31 (1962) (“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte [pursuant to 8 Rule 41(b)] for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent 9 power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in 10 courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious 11 disposition of cases.”); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 12 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 909 (2003) (court may dismiss action for failure to 13 follow court order). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 17 Dated: April 24, 2023.

18 HONORABLE CONSUELO B. MARSHALL 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2

4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 10 LATOYA L. ADAMS, Case No. CV 23-1656-CBM (AGR) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 13 DOMINICK A. GALLEGOS, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 14 Defendant. COURT ORDER

15 16 On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Dkt. 1), along with a request 17 to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2). Because Plaintiff requested leave to proceed 18 in forma pauperis in this action, the Court screened the Complaint to determine 19 whether the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief 20 may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 21 such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 22 On March 9, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma 23 pauperis without prejudice and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. 24 (Dkt. 8 (the “March 9, 2023 Order”).) The Court allowed Plaintiff thirty (30) days 25 in which to file an amended complaint and a renewed request to proceed in forma 26 pauperis. (Id.). The Court warned Plaintiff that a failure to timely file an amended 27 complaint in conformity with the Court’s March 9, 2023 Order may result in 1 More than 30 days have now passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended 2 complaint or otherwise prosecuted this case or complied with the Court’s March 9, 3 2023 Order. 4 Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 5 for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s March 9, 6 2023 Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 7 626, 630-31 (1962) (“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte [pursuant to 8 Rule 41(b)] for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent 9 power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in 10 courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious 11 disposition of cases.”); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 12 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 909 (2003) (court may dismiss action for failure to 13 follow court order). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 17 Dated: April 24, 2023.

18 HONORABLE CONSUELO B. MARSHALL 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

LaToya L. Adams v. Dominick A. Gallegos, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latoya-l-adams-v-dominick-a-gallegos-cacd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack