Rashidiasl v. MEP (ESIS/ Arch/ Chubb)

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 FARIBA RASHIDIASL, Case No.: 23-CV-0325-GPC-DEB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 12 v. ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM AND FOR FAILING TO 13 MEP (ESIS/ARCH/CHUBB); IQARUS PROSECUTE IN COMPLIANCE (international SOS), 14 WITH COURT ORDER REQUIRING Defendants. AMENDMENT 15

16 On February 17, 2023, Plaintiff Fariba Rashidiasl (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, 17 filed a complaint against Defendants MEP (ESIS/ARCH/CHUBB) and Iqarus 18 (International SOS) along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and motion 19 to appoint counsel. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2, 3.) On May 30, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s 20 motion to proceed in forma pauperis1, sua sponte dismissed the complaint for failure to 21 state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and denied the motion to appoint counsel as 22 moot. (Dkt. No. 12.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to 23 cure the deficiencies noted in the order no later than June 30, 2023. (Id. at 7.) 24 On June 29, 2023, Plaintiff mailed a motion for extension of time to file an appeal 25

26 1 The Court recognizes there was an error in the introductory paragraph of its order stating that the 27 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) was granted; however, the caption, the analysis of the IFP 28 motion explaining why it was denied, and the conclusion confirm that the Court denied Plaintiff’s 1 of the Court’s order. (Dkt. No. 15.) On July 6, 2023, the Court denied her motion 2 because the Ninth Circuit would not have jurisdiction over an order that granted Plaintiff 3 leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 16 (citing WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 4 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (“We now specifically rule that a plaintiff, who has been given 5 leave to amend, may not file a notice of appeal simply because he does not choose to file 6 an amended complaint. A further district court determination must be obtained.”).) 7 Instead, the Court granted her an extension of time to file an amended complaint and an 8 amended motion to proceed IFP by August 4, 2023. (Id.) 9 Around August 3, 2023, Plaintiff wrote two letters to the Court. On August 17, 10 2023, the Court issued an order rejecting and striking the two letters from the docket 11 because the Court could not construe the letters as an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 19.) 12 The Court explained that an amended complaint must comply with the Federal Rules of 13 Civil Procedure as well as the Southern District of California Civil Local Rules. (Id. at 14 2.) In light of these deficiencies, the Court granted Plaintiff one final opportunity to file 15 an amended complaint by September 15, 2023. (Id. at 3.) 16 The deadline to file an amended complaint has passed and to date, Plaintiff has not 17 filed an amended complaint nor sought an extension of time to file one. Accordingly, the 18 Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without further leave to amend based on 19 Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for failure to 20 prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Edwards v. Marin 21 Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to 22 respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or indicating to the 23 court that [she] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) 24 dismissal.”); Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not 25 take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the 26 dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”). The Court DIRECTS the 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 || Clerk of Court to enter final judgment of dismissal and to close the file. 3 || Dated: October 3, 2023 Casto 0h 4 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28