Espinosa v., Inc.

Filing 12

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/2/17 ORDERING that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARREL L. ESPINOSA, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:16-mc-00168-KJM Plaintiff, v. ORDER PERSEPO.COM, INC., et al., Defendants. 16 17 This case is before the court as required by a pre-filing review order issued in a 18 prior case. See Espinosa v. Marshall et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01192-MCE-GGH (E.D. Cal. June 19 15, 2007). The pre-filing review order declared plaintiff a “vexatious litigant” and required 20 plaintiff to submit a declaration certifying that any new litigation is not related to prior cases 21 brought by plaintiff and that the new claims are not frivolous or made in bad faith. Id. at 2–3. 22 On October 14, 2016, plaintiff filed the complaint in this action and a pre-filing 23 review declaration. ECF Nos. 1, 3. Upon review of plaintiff’s declaration, the court found it 24 could not determine whether the instant case “is in fact related to a previous case filed by 25 plaintiff,” as required by the pre-filing review order. ECF No. 6 (filed November 1, 2016). The 26 court struck plaintiff’s declaration, allowed him to file a second declaration complying with the 27 pre-filing review order within fourteen days, and warned that his failure to do so could result in 28 dismissal. Id. at 2. 1 1 Rather than filing a second declaration, plaintiff appealed. ECF No. 7 (notice of 2 appeal filed November 4, 2016). Because this court had not issued a final or appealable order, the 3 Ninth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. ECF Nos. 9, 10 (mandate issued January 5, 4 2017). 5 It has been over six months since the Ninth Circuit dismissed plaintiff’s appeal. 6 As of this date, he has not filed a subsequent declaration complying with his pre-filing review 7 order or otherwise enabling the court to determine whether this action “is in fact related to a 8 previous case filed by plaintiff,” as the pre-filing review order requires. Plaintiff has been fairly 9 warned of the consequences of not filing a second declaration and has had ample time to do so. 10 Given his sustained silence, dismissal is appropriate. 11 Accordingly, the court DISMISSES this action with prejudice. 12 This order resolves ECF No. 6. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 DATED: August 2, 2017. 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?