Danna Vongamath et al v. The Sharvanian Law Firm et al
ORDER Dismissing Action Without Prejudice for Lack of Prosecution, Failure to Comply with Court Order & Failure to Pay the Case Filing Fee by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank: Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecutio n, failure to comply with court order, and failure to pay the case filing fee. Plaintiff is also advised that the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the Central District of California prohibit letters to the judges. The case shall be terminated (JS-6). IT IS SO ORDERED. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (shb)
Case 5:22-cv-01954-VBF-ADS Document 5 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SHARVANIAN LAW FIRM et al.,
No. ED CV 22-01954-VBF-ADS
Dismissing Action Without Prejudice
for Lack of Prosecution, Failure to
Comply with Court Order & Failure
to Pay the Case-Filing Fee
On November 3, 2022, proceeding pro se, plaintiff Danna Vongamath constructively
filed the complaint initiating this 42 U.S.C. section 1983 civil-rights action on behalf of
himself and his son, listed in the caption as A.I.L. See CM/ECF System Document (“Doc”)
1. On November 7, 2022, the Clerk’s Office issued a Form CV-93 Notice re: Discrepancies
in Filing of Civil Rights Complaint (Doc 3), advising plaintiff that he had not paid the
appropriate filing fee. The Notice further advised plaintiff that he had thirty days to either
pay the filing fee or file a Form CV-60 Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing
Fees with Declaration in Support. Finally, the Notice warned plaintiff that if he did not
respond within thirty days from the date of the Notice, “your action may be dismissed.”
Not counting the day that the Notice was issued (November 7, 2022), the thirty days
started running on November 8, 2022 and ended at midnight on December 7, 2022. That
Case 5:22-cv-01954-VBF-ADS Document 5 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:20
deadline elapsed well over a month ago, yet plaintiff has neither paid the case filing fee nor
submitted a Form CV-60 request to proceed without prepayment.
Instead, plaintiff mailed a letter to the Court, which was docketed on December 15,
202 (Doc 4). The letter contained often disjointed, incoherent, or unclear allegations against
Sharvanian Law Firm and apparently local police for stalking and harassing him, and he
requests injunctive relief against the Sharvanian Law Firm “and all Sharvanians.”
On page two of the letter, plaintiff refers without explanation to “a bomb going off”
and states that he needs a background check, perhaps on the mayor of Eastvale, California.
See Doc 4 at 3. Plaintiff then alleges that Sharvanian Law Firm “had the fire department on
pay” and observes, without explanation, “PS Money also for hire.” Doc 4 at 2-3. Plaintiff
next alleges that the CHP and the “Riverside Norco Sheriff’s Department” grow marijuana
and watch “mafia” growing marijuana. He states, “I used to work for them growing weed,
and they told me they were paying the Sheriff’s Department”, and charges that “they are
premeditating to kill me walking home from jail.” Doc 4 at 3. He fails to make clear
whether “they” are the Sharvanians, Sheriff’s Department, CHP, or someone else.
Plaintiff concludes the letter by requesting “a gen[e]ral pardon” for unspecified
putative convictions or illegal conduct “to protect myself and my family”, alleging that an
unspecified “they alre[a]dy killed my fat[h]er’s family - and his children.” Doc 4 at 5.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution,
failure to comply with court order, and failure to pay the case filing fee.
Plaintiff is also advised that the Local Civil Rules of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California prohibit letters to the judges.
The case shall be terminated (JS-6). IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 18, 2023
Honorable Valerie Baker Fairbank
Senior United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?