Opinion
2:21-cv-08310-JFW-PD
12-17-2021
Catherine Alcantara v. Los Angeles Police Department
Present: The Honorable: Patricia Donahue, United States Magistrate Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause
On October 20, 2021, Plaintiff Catherine Alcantara, a California state resident proceeding pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the “Complaint”) alleging that Defendant Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) had been stalking and harassing her since Spring 2018. Plaintiff also filed a Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fee (the “IFP Request”). [Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.]
The Court conducted mandatory screening of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and determined that the claims were not actionable under section 1983. First, the Complaint was confusing and did not state which of Plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated. The Court could not discern specific allegations related to what LAPD was accused of doing or not doing. Therefore, the Complaint failed to adhere to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Next, the Complaint did not describe any conduct by anyone acting under color of state law. The conduct alleged was committed by non-state actors with no stated connection to Defendant. Finally, the Complaint failed to sufficiently plead municipal liability against LAPD under Monell v. Dep of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). [Dkt. No. 5.]
For these reasons, on November 16, 2021, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. The Court also denied the IFP Request on the ground that the form had not been fully completed. Plaintiff was ordered to re-submit a IFP Request with a First Amended Complaint no later than December 16, 2021 if she wished to proceed. [Id. at 8-9.]
As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has failed to file a First Amended Complaint and re-submit the IFP Request, or otherwise communicate with the Court about her case.
Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an action may be subject to involuntary dismissal if a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Accordingly, the Court could properly recommend dismissal of the action for Plaintiff's failure to timely comply with the Court's November 16, 2021 Order.
However, in the interests of justice, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before January 14, 2022, why this Court should not recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff may discharge this Order by filing:
(1) a request setting forth good cause for an extension of time to file an amended complaint and IFP Request, and a declaration signed under penalty of perjury, explaining why she failed to comply with the Court's November 16, 2021 Order; or
(2) an amended complaint and, if Plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, a fully completed IFP Request.
Alternatively, if Plaintiff does not wish to pursue this action, she may file a signed document entitled “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal” pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A). The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a Form CV-09 Notice of Dismissal.
Plaintiff is advised that the failure to timely comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and Local Rule 41-1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.