Nathan Cooley v. County of Los Angeles

Opinion

Case 2:23-cv-02080-DMG-PD Document 6 Filed 03/23/23 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 23-2080-DMG (PD) Date March 23, 2023

Title Nathan Cooley v. County of Los Angeles, et al. Page 1 of 1

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN NOT REPORTED Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present

Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

On March 20, 2023, Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, filed the complaint in this action. He alleges claims against the County of Los Angeles, Judge Mark A. Young, Judge Lisa Sepe- Wiesenfeld, and Judge Bobbi Tillmon under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on actions taken in the Santa Monica courthouse. [Doc. # 1.] He alleges that between 2016 and 2023, “the County of Los Angeles Court illegal[ly] obtain[ed] jurisdiction . . . under fraudulent pretense[s] and denied [Plaintiff] his civil rights, . . . lied about his legal status[,] and claimed that he was a[n] LLC acting as a DBA[.]” [Doc. # 1 at 4.] On March 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court under case number CV 23-1809-DMG (AFMx), alleging that the same four defendants violated his civil rights in the same place and during the same period by engaging in the following action: “The Court fraudulent[ly] change[d] the entity of Wigley Industries to a different name AKA Nathan Cooley DBA Wigley Industry.” Complaint at 5, Cooley v. Cnty. of L.A., et al., CV 23-1809-DMG (AFMx).

A district court generally has the discretion “to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action pending resolution of the previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it, or to consolidate both actions.” Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). The Court accordingly ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as duplicative of Case No. 23-1809-DMG (AFMx). Plaintiff shall file a written response to this Order by April 13, 2023. Failure to timely comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk KT