Maria A. Anders v. County of Santa Barbara Sherriffs Department

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 27, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00617
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:23-cv-00617-FWS-MAA Document 5 Filed 01/27/23 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:10

__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 2:23-CV-00617-FWS-MAA Date: January 27, 2023 Title: Maria A. Anders v. County of Santa Barbara Sheriffs Department 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 DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE [1]

The court is in receipt of several documents from Plaintiff Maria A. Anders (“Plaintiff”) including: (1) a letter entitled “Complaint; Request of 90 Day Extension to File Initial Complaint;” and (2) a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Application”). (Dkts. 1, 3.) The court observes that the first of these filings appears to be a letter to the court requesting that the case be filed under seal and seeking a 90-day extension of time to file the actual Complaint. (Dkt. 1.)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), pleadings must conform with the following requirements:

A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

____________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 1 Case 2:23-cv-00617-FWS-MAA Document 5 Filed 01/27/23 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:11

__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 2:23-CV-00617-FWS-MAA Date: January 27, 2023 Title: Maria A. Anders v. County of Santa Barbara Sheriffs Department et al. The Ninth Circuit has held that a complaint may be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8. See Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss a complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8(a).”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A complaint which fails to comply with [R]ules 8(a) and 8(e) may be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to [R]ule 41(b).”).

This District’s Local Rules also instruct parties that letters to the judge are not a proper means of communicating with the court. Specifically, Local Rule 83-2.5 provides:

Attorneys or parties to any action or proceeding shall refrain from writing letters to the judge, sending e-mail messages to the judge, making telephone calls to chambers, or otherwise communicating with a judge in a pending matter unless opposing counsel is present. All matters must be called to a judge’s attention by appropriate application or motion filed in compliance with these Local Rules.

L. R. 83-2.5.

The court observes that the letter entitled “Complaint; Request of 90 Day Extension to File Initial Complaint” at Docket No. 1 does not comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 or Local Rule 83-2.5. The court further observes that there is no pleading that can serve as the appropriate case-initiating document for this action. (See generally Dkt.) Accordingly, the court finds that dismissal without prejudice is warranted for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In addition, having found that there is no appropriate case-initiating document in this action, the court declines to rule on Plaintiff’s IFP Application at this time. The court therefore ORDERS the Complaint dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku ____________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 2