The People of the State of California et al v Kirell Francis Bettis

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge George H. King. The Court previously received from Kirell Francis Bettis a lodged "Notice of Removal." Wenote that although the filing was styled as a "Notice of Removal," Mr. Bettis is not, in fac t, removing an action filed in state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, but rather is attempting to file a new federal action. Moreover, although Mr. Bettis represents that he is the Defendant in this action, it appears from the face of his f iling that he intends to prosecute this action against the State of California. Mr. Bettis's Notice of Removal was filed without an accompanying IFP request and without payment of the filing fees. On October 24, 2014, the Court sent a warning letter to Mr. Bettis advising that failure to correct this deficiency within THIRTY DAYS from the date of the warning letter would result in dismissal of this case. More than THIRTY DAYS have now passed, and the deficiency has not been corrected. Accordingly, this case is hereby ORDERED DISMISSED. No further filings shall be accepted under this case number., Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (pso)

E-FILED — JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-8271-UA

Title

The People of the State of California v. Kirell Francis Bettis

Presiding: The Honorable

Date

January 27, 2015

GEORGE H. KING, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Beatrice Herrera

N/A

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order re: Notice of Removal

The Court previously received from Kirell Francis Bettis a lodged “Notice of Removal.” We
note that although the filing was styled as a “Notice of Removal,” Mr. Bettis is not, in fact, removing an
action filed in state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, but rather is attempting to file a new federal
action. Moreover, although Mr. Bettis represents that he is the Defendant in this action, it appears from
the face of his filing that he intends to prosecute this action against the State of California. Mr. Bettis’s
“Notice of Removal” was filed without an accompanying IFP request and without payment of the filing
fees. On October 24, 2014, the Court sent a warning letter to Mr. Bettis advising that failure to correct
this deficiency within THIRTY DAYS from the date of the warning letter would result in dismissal of
this case. More than THIRTY DAYS have now passed, and the deficiency has not been corrected.
Accordingly, this case is hereby ORDERED DISMISSED. No further filings shall be accepted under
this case number.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

-Initials of Deputy Clerk

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

--

Bea

Page 1 of 1