McDowell et al v. State of California et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO DISMISS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 8/1/2011. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
REQUEST TO DISMISS THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. C 11-02569 CRB

FRANK AND DEBORAH MCDOWELL,

v.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

15

Defendant.

/

16

The Court is in receipt of a filing from pro se plaintiffs Frank and Deborah McDowell

17
18

entitled “‘Dismiss’ the State of California Do [sic] to Lack of Prosecution.” See dkt. 23.

19

The filing initially states. “Plaintiff’s [sic] dismiss the state of California due to a lack of

20

prosecution and furtherance of justice.” Id. at 1. It then goes on to state “I’m asking the

21

State Bar to sanction the appeall’s [sic] court because they had no jurisdiction when

22

Plaintiff’s [sic] first mention [sic] the R.I.C.O.” Id. at 2. It is unclear to the Court what

23

Plaintiff is asking the Court to do, although the Court notes that (1) lack of prosecution

24

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 generally applies to plaintiffs, and (2)

25

Plaintiffs’ dealings with the State Bar do not currently appear to be relevant to this case.

26

Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiffs are asking the Court to do something, that request

27

//

28

//

1

is DENIED. If the Court has misapprehended Plaintiffs’ filing, Plaintiffs may renew their

2

request at the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on August 26, 2011.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: August 1, 2011

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2011\2569\order re dismiss ca.wpd

2