Poslof v. Arce

Opinion

LONNIE LEE POSLOF (BE0659), Case No. 24-cv-05444-PCP Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v.

CARLOS ARCE, et al., Defendants.

Lonnie Lee Poslof, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed several lawsuits. In the instant action, Mr. Poslof filed a “Motion for Injunction and/or Restraining Order.” In response to his “motion,” the Clerk of the Court informed Mr. Poslof that he needed to file his civil rights complaint on the form provided to him, as well as complete an In Forma Pauperis affidavit or pay the filing fee by September 27, 2024. See Dkt. Nos. 2 & 3. The deadline has long passed, and Mr. Poslof has failed to file his complaint on form, file an IFP affidavit, or pay his filing fee. In addition to the instant action, Mr. Poslof filed two petitions for writ of mandamus raising claims nearly identical to those raised here. See Poslof v. Arce, Case No. 24-cv-05446-PCP (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 12, 2024); Poslof v. Warden et al., Case No. 24-05447-PCP (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 14, 2024). This Court issued an order to show cause why all three lawsuits, including the instant action, should not be dismissed pursuant to Younger v, Harris, 491 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 (1983). The Court also notified Mr. Poslof that the failure to voluntarily dismiss any cases may result in him having to pay the costs of filing each action. See Dkt. No. 5. not the instant action. Dkt. No. 6. However, in addition to failing to follow the Clerk’s instructions to file the complaint on form and either file an IFP affidavit or pay the filing fee for the instant action, Mr. Poslof has failed to adequately respond to the issues raised in this Court’s Order to Show Cause: Mr. Poslof does not point to any evidence, beyond his own conclusory assertions, showing that he exhausted all available remedies and does not explain why the Younger and Rooker-Feldman doctrines do not apply to his claim. As noted in this Court’s order to show cause, district courts are without discretion to ignore a failure to exhaust. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006). Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders: 1. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a new lawsuit so that Mr. Poslof can vindicate his rights at a future date once he has exhausted all remedies. 2. The Court notes that Mr. Poslof has also filed several motions and requests since he filed his response to this Court’s Order to Show Cause. See Dkt. Nos. 7, 8, 9, & 10. a. To the extent that Mr. Poslof is requesting to file a new complaint raising new claims, he is free to do so. However, this Court notes that Mr. Poslof will again be subject to the Clerk’s instructions and the legal doctrines outlined in this Court’s order to show cause if he wishes to pursue the same claims raised in the instant action. See Dkt. No. 5. b. To the extent that Mr. Poslof requests that this Court consolidate all of his lawsuits, including the instant action, his motion is DENIED as moot. The Court notes that Mr. Poslof filed two additional lawsuits before responding to this Court’s Order to Show Cause and has filed motions seeking the same injunctive relief sought in the instant “motion.” See Poslof v. Arce et al., Case No. 24-cv- 06004-PCP (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 26, 2024), Dkt. No. 2; Poslof v. Adams et al., Case No. 24-cv-06146-PCP (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 30, 2024), Dkt. No. 2. The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions and return Mr. Poslof’s documents related to the instant action per his request. The Clerk is further requested to send Mr. Poslof a blank ] civil rights complaint form. The Court will issue separate orders in Mr. Poslof’s remaining lawsuits 2 as appropriate. 3 5 Dated: January 3, 2025 May 7 P. Casey Pitts 8 United States District Judge 9 10 1] as 12

13 «14

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28