Benson v. Hemet Police Dep't

Full title: Ada Maria Benson v. Hemet Police Department

Court: United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Dec 9, 2021

5:20-cv-002230-DMG-SHK (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2021)

Opinion

5:20-cv-002230-DMG-SHK

12-09-2021

Ada Maria Benson v. Hemet Police Department

Honorable Shashi H. Kewalramani, United States Magistrate Judge

CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

Honorable Shashi H. Kewalramani, United States Magistrate Judge

Proceedings (IN CHAMBERS): FINAL ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On November 29, 2021, the Court received Plaintiff Ada Maria Benson's ("Plaintiff) Notice Re: Court Document #15 ("Response"). Electronic Case Filing Number ("ECF No.") 17, Response. Plaintiffs Response appears to address the Court's Order Dismissing First Amended Complaint Without Prejudice and with Leave to Amend ("ODLA") filed on November 9, 2021. ECF No. 15, ODLA. The ODLA required Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") if Plaintiff desired to do so by November 30, 2021. Id

Rather than filing a SAC, Plaintiff is claiming that the District Court does not have jurisdiction over her case because it is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ("Ninth Circuit"). See ECF No. 17, Response at 1. However, on September 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued its Order dismissing Plaintiffs appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 14, Order. Therefore, jurisdiction over the matter returned to this District Court.

Consequently, Plaintiff will be given one final opportunity to comply with the Court's ODLA. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE no later than December 23, 2021 and either (a) advise the Court that Plaintiff does not desire to pursue this action; (b) if Plaintiff does desire to pursue this action, Plaintiff must show good cause in writing, if any exists, why Plaintiff has not timely filed with the Court a SAC; or (c) file a SAC fixing the deficiencies consistent with the Court's Order in the SAC if Plaintiff wishes to continue litigating those claims.

Plaintiff is forewarned that if Plaintiff fails to move forward with any of the options listed above, the Court may deem such failure as a further violation of a Court order justifying dismissal, and the Court may also deem such a failure as further evidence of a lack of prosecution on Plaintiffs part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.