Opinion
B164784.
10-30-2003
TIWALOLA OLADIJI SHOYINKA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent.
Tiwalola Oladiji Shoyinka, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance by Defendant and Respondent.
Appellant Tiwalola Oladiji Shoyinka appeals from the judgment dismissing his complaint for failure to prosecute. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
While he was in Los Angeles county jail in June 2002, Tiwalola Oladiji Shoyinka filed a defamation complaint against the City of Los Angeles. The complaint alleged city employees had defamed him 20 times by, among other things, falsely accusing him of striking the mother of his four children; labeling him a child molester, wife beater, and rapist; giving his arrest record for sexual assault of a minor to various law enforcement agencies; and, repeating the substance of the sexual assault charge in various court proceedings. His complaint sought $100 million in compensatory damages and $400 million in punitive damages.
After appellant filed his complaint, he asked the Los Angeles County sheriff to serve the summons and complaint on the city. Apparently, the sheriff did not do so. The record and appellants brief do not explicitly state why the sheriff refused, but the reason seems to be appellants failure to pay certain fees. Appellant thereafter moved for an order that the clerk of the superior court mail the complaint and summons to him to permit him to serve the city (apparently while he was still in jail). The court denied appellants motion in October 2002. The complaint never having been served, the court dismissed it in December 2002 for failure to prosecute. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Appellant requests that we reverse the courts judgment because he contends the court wrongfully dismissed his complaint.
It is appellants obligation to demonstrate the trial court erred. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296; Cosenza v. Kramer (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1100, 1102; Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 712.) To meet this burden, appellant must show the trial court misapplied the law to the facts before it. Appellants unhappiness with the dismissal is evident. But disappointment with a legal result is not the same as demonstrating error in a legal ruling. To show error, appellant must give us a record which contains the facts before the trial court, and an opening brief with citations to the record that discusses relevant statutes and court decisions. (Maria P. v. Riles, supra, at pp. 1295-1296; Cosenza v. Kramer, supra, at p. 1102; Rossiter v. Benoit, supra, at p. 712.) Appellant does not do so. His brief contains no citations to the record, and does not discuss the law involving a plaintiffs duty to prosecute his action. Based on this record and brief, we must affirm. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 [judgment presumed correct unless error is affirmatively shown].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Each side to bear its own costs on appeal.
We concur: COOPER, P.J. and BOLAND, J.