Don Martin v. City of Los Angeles

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Don Martin v. City of Los Angeles

Trial Court Opinion

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DON MARTIN, et al., Case No. CV 21-7537 TJH (PVC)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO FILE IFP APPLICATION 14 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs Don Martin, Julieanne Gerard, Richard Tapia, Troy Baetz, and El 18 Lemine, California residents proceeding pro se, jointly filed a civil rights complaint 19 alleging that Los Angeles Police Department Officers unlawfully impounded Martin’s 20 motorhome, in which the remaining Plaintiffs had stored some of their belongings. (Dkt. 21 No. 1). However, Plaintiffs did not pay the filing fee or move for IFP status. 22 23 Accordingly, on October 1, 2021, the Court issued an order advising all five 24 Plaintiffs that in multi-plaintiff pro se actions, each plaintiff may prosecute claims only on 25 his/her own behalf and must individually file an IFP application supported by an adequate 26 showing of indigency, unless the full filing fee is paid. (“Order,” Dkt. No. 6) (citing 27 Archer v. Retter,

2020 WL 2198172

, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2020); Gulbransen v. Far 28 N. Reg’l Ctr.,

2011 WL 2462994

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 17, 2011); Pina v. Horel, 2008 1 || WL 686590, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2008)). The Court ordered Plaintiffs either to pay 2 || the full filing fee or to file separate IFP applications within thirty days of the Court’s 3 || Order, i.e., by October 31, 2021, if they wished to proceed with their claims. The Court 4 || expressly cautioned Plaintiffs “that if, by the Court’s thirty-day deadline, they fail to pay 5 || the filing fee in full and no Plaintiff, on the basis of a full and complete IFP application, 6 || qualifies for IFP status, this case will be closed without further prior notice.” (Order at 3). 7 8 The Court’s deadline has passed and no Plaintiff has filed an IFP application or 9 || requested an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, this action is hereby 10 || DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or to make an adequate 11 || showing of indigency. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 || Dated: NOVEMBER 9, 2021 — / □ Me □□ 16 TERRY. HATTER, JR. ; U7 UNIT#ZD S4ATES DISTRICT GE 18 19 0 Presented by: 21 . 22 huh 23 | DEDROV.CASTILLO. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown