Roberts v. Milles

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TINA LOUISE ROBERTS, Case No.: 22-CV-956 JLS (BLM)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH 13 v. PREJUDICE 14 MATT MILLES; CALI OLSON; and US 15 BANK, Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 On August 26, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Tina Louise Roberts’s Amended 22 Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a 23 claim. See ECF No. 6. The Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to file a new amended 24 complaint and warned Plaintiff that failure to do so would result in the Court entering a 25 final Order dismissing the case for failure to state a claim, lack of subject-matter 26 jurisdiction, and failure to prosecute. See id. The thirty-day deadline has passed, but 27 Plaintiff has yet to file an amended complaint or otherwise appear in this action. Instead, 28 Plaintiff appears to have initiated another action based on similar, if not identical, claims. 1 || See Roberts v. Olson, No. 3:22-CV-1373 JLS (BLM), ECF No. 1 (S.D. Cal. filed Sept. 12, 2 ||}2022). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's action in its 3 |lentirety. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Ifa plaintiff does not 4 ||take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the 5 || dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”). This Order concludes the 6 || litigation in this matter. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: October 1 1, 2022 pe it. Jt, ithe 9 on. Janis L. Sammartino 10 United States District Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28