Lexus Thomeka Ray v. City of Orange Police Dept

C.D. California

Lexus Thomeka Ray v. City of Orange Police Dept

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 24, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-08456·Unknown

Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case 2:24-cv-08456-SVW-MBK Dat September 24, No. e 2025 Title Lexus Ray v. City of Orange Police Department, et al.

Present: The Michael B. Kaufman, U.S. Magistrate Judge Honorable James Muñoz n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Petitioner: Attorneys Present for Respondent: None present None present Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff filed a complaint initiating this action on October 1, 2024. Dkt. 1. On March 28, 2025, this Court issued a screening order, dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. 12. The order gave Plaintiff until April 25, 2025, to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to cure the deficiencies identified in the initial complaint. Id. On April 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file the FAC. Dkt. 14. On May 5, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request, giving Plaintiff until June 4, 2025, to file an amended complaint. Dkt. 15. Plaintiff filed a second request for an extension of time to file the amended complaint, (Dkt. 16), which the Court granted, giving Plaintiff until July 10, 2025, to file the FAC. Dkt. 17. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a First Amended Complaint or a statement of voluntary dismissal. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and obey Court orders. Plaintiff’s (1) response to this OSC and (2) First Amended Complaint or statement of voluntary dismissal are due on or before October 24, 2025. Failure to comply with the terms of this order may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Proc. 41(b). Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2019). Appreciating the challenges that may come with self-representation, the Court directs Plaintiff to the following resources for pro se plaintiffs for guidance: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case 2:24-cv-08456-SVW-MBK Dat September 24, No. e 2025 Title Lexus Ray v. City of Orange Police Department, et al.

e General information on how parties may represent themselves in civil cases in the Central District of California can be found at: https://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/. e Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can be found at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frep. e Local Civil Rules for the Central District of California can be found at: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/court-procedures/local-rules. e This Court’s rules and procedures are located at: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-michael-b-kaufman e Public Counsel runs a free Federal Pro Se Clinic where pro se litigants can get information and guidance. The Clinic is located at the Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Pro se litigants must call or submit an online application to request services as follows: online applications can be submitted at http://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/losangeles, or call (2138) 385-2977, ext. 270. e Public Counsel also has extensive resources for pro se litigants at its website located at https://publiccounsel.org/services/federal-court/. The LA Law Library, located across the street from the First Street Courthouse at 301 W. First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, also has extensive resources for pro se litigants. The LA Law Library can be reached via email at reference@lalawlibray.org, or via telephone at (2138) 785-2513. kk * Plaintiff is advised of the following requirements for preparing and submitting documents in this case. Any document that does not comply with any of these requirements may be returned to Plaintiff without filing and will not be considered by the Court. 1. All documents sent to the Court should be addressed to: “Clerk, U.S. District Court, 255 E. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.” No documents or letters should ever be sent to the judge or the judge’s staff. 2. Each document must include the title and case number (including judges’ initials). Documents should have at least a one-inch margin at the top of each page and should be printed or neatly handwritten on one side of the paper only. No document may exceed 25 pages in length (exclusive of tables and exhibits) without leave of court. This provision of the Local Rules applies to all briefs.

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case 2:24-cv-08456-SVW-MBK Dat September 24, No. e 2025 Title Lexus Ray v. City of Orange Police Department, et al.

3. Plaintiff must mail the Court the original and one copy of each document. Photocopies, printed copies, or clear handwritten copies are acceptable. The original and copy should be mailed in a single envelope. Plaintiff should keep a copy of any document sent to the Court. 4. After any defendant has filed an appearance in this action, Plaintiff must file any future document with the Court and serve it on Defendant(s) by mailing a copy to defense counsel at the address given on court orders or defense filings. Plaintiff must attach a “proof of service” to the document when it is filed with the Court. The proof of service must state that a copy of the filed document was mailed to the defense attorney and when it was mailed. 5. At the top of the first page of any document sent to the Court, Plaintiff must give his or her name and mailing address, and any other information needed for mail to be delivered. The Court will assume that the address is correct and will use it until informed otherwise. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to notify the Court and defense counsel of any change of address and the effective date of the change. If Plaintiff fails to keep the Court informed of a correct mailing address, this case may be dismissed under Local Rule 41-6, which states as follows: Failure of Pro Se Plaintiff to Keep Court Apprised of Current Address: A party proceeding pro se must keep the Court and all other parties informed of the party’s current address as well as any telephone number and email address. If a Court order or other mail served on a pro se plaintiff at his address of record is returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable and the pro se party has not filed a notice of change of address within 14 days of the service date of the order or other Court document, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case 2:24-cv-08456-SVW-MBK Dat September 24, No. e 2025 Title Lexus Ray v. City of Orange Police Department, et al.

Present: The Michael B. Kaufman, U.S. Magistrate Judge Honorable James Muñoz n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Petitioner: Attorneys Present for Respondent: None present None present Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff filed a complaint initiating this action on October 1, 2024. Dkt. 1. On March 28, 2025, this Court issued a screening order, dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. 12. The order gave Plaintiff until April 25, 2025, to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to cure the deficiencies identified in the initial complaint. Id. On April 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file the FAC. Dkt. 14. On May 5, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request, giving Plaintiff until June 4, 2025, to file an amended complaint. Dkt. 15. Plaintiff filed a second request for an extension of time to file the amended complaint, (Dkt. 16), which the Court granted, giving Plaintiff until July 10, 2025, to file the FAC. Dkt. 17. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a First Amended Complaint or a statement of voluntary dismissal. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and obey Court orders. Plaintiff’s (1) response to this OSC and (2) First Amended Complaint or statement of voluntary dismissal are due on or before October 24, 2025. Failure to comply with the terms of this order may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Proc. 41(b). Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2019). Appreciating the challenges that may come with self-representation, the Court directs Plaintiff to the following resources for pro se plaintiffs for guidance: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case 2:24-cv-08456-SVW-MBK Dat September 24, No. e 2025 Title Lexus Ray v. City of Orange Police Department, et al.

e General information on how parties may represent themselves in civil cases in the Central District of California can be found at: https://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/. e Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can be found at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frep. e Local Civil Rules for the Central District of California can be found at: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/court-procedures/local-rules. e This Court’s rules and procedures are located at: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-michael-b-kaufman e Public Counsel runs a free Federal Pro Se Clinic where pro se litigants can get information and guidance. The Clinic is located at the Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Pro se litigants must call or submit an online application to request services as follows: online applications can be submitted at http://prose.cacd.uscourts.gov/losangeles, or call (2138) 385-2977, ext. 270. e Public Counsel also has extensive resources for pro se litigants at its website located at https://publiccounsel.org/services/federal-court/. The LA Law Library, located across the street from the First Street Courthouse at 301 W. First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, also has extensive resources for pro se litigants. The LA Law Library can be reached via email at reference@lalawlibray.org, or via telephone at (2138) 785-2513. kk * Plaintiff is advised of the following requirements for preparing and submitting documents in this case. Any document that does not comply with any of these requirements may be returned to Plaintiff without filing and will not be considered by the Court. 1. All documents sent to the Court should be addressed to: “Clerk, U.S. District Court, 255 E. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012.” No documents or letters should ever be sent to the judge or the judge’s staff. 2. Each document must include the title and case number (including judges’ initials). Documents should have at least a one-inch margin at the top of each page and should be printed or neatly handwritten on one side of the paper only. No document may exceed 25 pages in length (exclusive of tables and exhibits) without leave of court. This provision of the Local Rules applies to all briefs.

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case 2:24-cv-08456-SVW-MBK Dat September 24, No. e 2025 Title Lexus Ray v. City of Orange Police Department, et al.

3. Plaintiff must mail the Court the original and one copy of each document. Photocopies, printed copies, or clear handwritten copies are acceptable. The original and copy should be mailed in a single envelope. Plaintiff should keep a copy of any document sent to the Court. 4. After any defendant has filed an appearance in this action, Plaintiff must file any future document with the Court and serve it on Defendant(s) by mailing a copy to defense counsel at the address given on court orders or defense filings. Plaintiff must attach a “proof of service” to the document when it is filed with the Court. The proof of service must state that a copy of the filed document was mailed to the defense attorney and when it was mailed. 5. At the top of the first page of any document sent to the Court, Plaintiff must give his or her name and mailing address, and any other information needed for mail to be delivered. The Court will assume that the address is correct and will use it until informed otherwise. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to notify the Court and defense counsel of any change of address and the effective date of the change. If Plaintiff fails to keep the Court informed of a correct mailing address, this case may be dismissed under Local Rule 41-6, which states as follows: Failure of Pro Se Plaintiff to Keep Court Apprised of Current Address: A party proceeding pro se must keep the Court and all other parties informed of the party’s current address as well as any telephone number and email address. If a Court order or other mail served on a pro se plaintiff at his address of record is returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable and the pro se party has not filed a notice of change of address within 14 days of the service date of the order or other Court document, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Lexus Thomeka Ray v. City of Orange Police Dept, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Lexus Thomeka Ray v. City of Orange Police Dept (Lexus Thomeka Ray v. City of Orange Police Dept) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related