Nguyen v. Pelosi

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 4, 2021
• Docket: 5:20-cv-08755
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11

12 MAI-TRANG THI NGUYEN, Case No. 20-CV-08755-LHK

13 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER APPLICATION TO 14 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

15 NANCY PELOSI, Speaker of the United Re: Dkt. No. 7 16 States House of Representatives, and MITCH MCCONNELL, Minority Leader of 17 the United States Senate, 18 Defendants. 19 On January 11, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 20 ECF No. 5. The Court held both that Plaintiff had failed to show poverty and that “Plaintiff’s 21 inscrutable pro se complaint against Speaker Pelosi and Senator McConnell is frivolous.” Id. at 2. 22 On January 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to reconsider her application to proceed in 23 forma pauperis. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint on January 19, 2021. ECF 24 No. 6. 25 The amended complaint is still frivolous. It makes essentially only two changes to the 26 original complaint. First, the amended complaint states that “mental illness expense [sic] is very 27 1 expensive (willing to drop lawsuit).” Jd. at 4. Second, the amended complaint states that 2 “[Plaintiff] will drop the lawsuit if Pelosi & McConnell remove the 2nd impeachment [sic] of 3 President Trump.” /d. Because the amended complaint is frivolous, the Court DENIES □□□□□□□□□□□ 4 instant motion to reconsider her application to proceed in forma pauperis. Moreover, the Court 5 DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint and amended complaint, ECF Nos. 1 & 6. 6 Should Plaintiff elect to file a non-frivolous second amended complaint, Plaintiff must do 7 so within 30 days of the date of this order. Failure to file a non-frivolous second amended 8 complaint within 30 days of the date of this order will result in dismissal of this case with 9 prejudice. A third frivolous complaint would confirm that further amendment would be legally 10 || futile. See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining 11 when denying leave to amend is warranted). 12 Also, within 30 days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either file a new motion to 13 || proceed in forma pauperis, including a new financial affidavit, or pay any outstanding fees, costs, S 14 || or security. See Civil L-R. 3-10 (governing motions to proceed in forma pauperis). 3 15 Lastly, the Court continues the March 10, 2021 case management conference to April 21, A 16 || 2021. If this case has not been dismissed, Plaintiff shall file a case management statement by April 47 14,2021.

Z 18 || ITISSO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: March 4, 2021 21 fucy i Cot \ LUCY @ KOH 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 20-CV-O8755-LHK eee