Hanh Thi My Do v. MLG assessment Recovery et al

Filing 37

MINUTE ORDER STRIKING Further Post-Judgment Filing 36 and ORDER to Show Cause RE: Imposition of Pre-Filing Restriction by Judge Fred W. Slaughter: The court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, why the court should not instruct the clerk of court to reject further filings from Plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff is ORDERED and DIRECTED to submit a response to the court's order to show cause on or before 3/6/2024. (jp)

__________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:23-cv-00553-FWS-DFM
Title: Hanh Thi My Do v. MLG assessment Recovery et al.

Date: February 7, 2024

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Melissa H. Kunig
Deputy Clerk

N/A
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

Not Present

Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: ORDER STRIKING FURTHER POST-JUDGMENT FILING [36]
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: IMPOSITION OF PREFILING RESTRICTION
The court is in receipt of a document Plaintiff filed dated January 26, 2024. (Dkt. 36.)
This case was closed on May 18, 2023. (Dkt. 15.) The court reiterates that Plaintiff’s
continued filings after the closure of this case are improper. Accordingly, the court STRIKES
the Plaintiff’s filing dated January 26, 2024 (Dkt. 36). See In re Hartford Litig. Cases, 642 F.
App’x 733, 736 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirming district court’s order striking from the docket
documents parties attempted to file after case was closed); Davis v. Adler, 765 F. App’x 400,
401 (9th Cir. 2019) (same).
Plaintiff has three times previously attempted to file documents in this case after it was
closed, which the court struck on July 20, 2023, January 8, 2024, and January 23, 2024. (Dkts.
28, 33, 35.) In both of its January orders striking the documents, the court advised Plaintiff that
continuing to improperly file documents in this case after its closure may result in the court
directing the clerk of court to reject any further filings from Plaintiff in this specific case. (Dkt.
33 at 1 (citing Patel v. Miller, 2021 WL 2224373, at *1 (9th Cir. May 18, 2021); Dkt. 35 at 1
(citing Patel, 2021 WL 2224373, at *1).) Despite these repeated warnings, Plaintiff has
continued to improperly file documents in this case while it remains closed. Accordingly,
because Plaintiff continues to improperly attempt to file documents in this case after its closure
despite repeated admonishments from the court that the court would impose prefiling
____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

1

__________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:23-cv-00553-FWS-DFM
Date: February 7, 2024
Title: Hanh Thi My Do v. MLG assessment Recovery et al.
restrictions if Plaintiff continues to do so, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, in
writing, why the court should not instruct the clerk of court to reject further filings from
Plaintiff in this case. See Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469-71 (9th Cir. 1990); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651(a). Plaintiff is ORDERED and DIRECTED to submit a response to the court’s order
to show cause on or before March 6, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

2