Hasseh El Bey v. Marco Robles et al

Filing 13

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT by Judge John A. Kronstadt. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. Refer to the Court's order for details. (pso)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

LA CV15-05113 JAK (PLAx)

Title

Hasseh El Bey v. Marco Robles, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

September 14, 2015

JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Andrea Keifer

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE DISSMISING THE COMPLAINT JS-6

On July 7, 2015, Plaintiff Hasseh El Bey, who is self-represented, brought this action. The complaint
names 11 Defendants as well as Does 1 through 10. The complaint advances claims for trespass to
chattel, conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On July 22, 2015, Plaintiff’s request to
proceed in forma pauperis was denied, due to an apparent lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On July 23,
2015, Plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee for the commencement, on or before August 14, 2015. He
did not do so.
On August 5, 2015, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause re Subject Matter Jurisdiction. That Order
required Plaintiff to submit a memorandum on or before August 21, 2015, in which he was to provide the
basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff did not respond.
On August 26, 2015, to provide Plaintiff with a final opportunity to comply with the prior orders, another
Order to Show Cause re Subject Matter Jurisdiction was issued; it also required Plaintiff to pay the filing
fee. That Order was mailed to Plaintiff at the address Plaintiff previously provided to the Court. The new
deadline for both actions was set for September 3, 2015. On September 2, 2015, the notice of the August
26 Order sent to Plaintiff was returned by the Postal Service to the Clerk as undelivered.
Pursuant to Local Rule 41-6, failure by a self-represented litigant to keep the Court apprised of his or her
current address may result in dismissal of the action. Further, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Orders
issued on July 23, August 5, and August 26. Therefore, pursuant to Local Rules 41-1 and 41-6 the instant
action is DISMISSED, without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders issued by the Court
and timely to prosecute this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

ak
Page 1 of 1