Knight v. Coliseum Lexus of Oakland

Filing 15

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 11/8/2017. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 DENNIS LEMONT KNIGHT, 7 Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE v. 9 COLISEUM LEXUS OF OAKLAND, 10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 13, 14 Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No.17-cv-05332-JSC 12 In this civil action for breach of contract, Plaintiff Dennis Lemont Knight seeks to recover 13 14 $2 million in damages from Defendant Coliseum Lexus of Oakland following a vehicle 15 repossession. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 16 without prejudice because Plaintiff had neither completed nor signed the application. 1 (Dkt. No. 17 6.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing 18 fee. Plaintiff thereafter paid the filing fee; however, the check was returned for insufficient funds. 19 (Dkt. No. 11.) The Court then ordered Plaintiff to submit the filing fee of $453.00 by November 20 3, 2017 and warned him that failure to do so could result in dismissal of this action for failure to 21 prosecute. (Dkt. No. 13.) Instead of paying the filing fee, Plaintiff submitted a letter wherein he 22 appears to dispute that his check was returned for insufficient funds stating that as a “private 23 American” he “used what the Government has given me as a remedy, a negotiable Instrument.” 24 (Dkt. No. 14 at 1.) Plaintiff also states that “As an American and not a Corporate Fiction I am 25 entitled to have a case opened with fee payment.” (Id.) The Court DISMISSES this action for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff’s initial application to 26 27 1 28 Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 8.) 1 proceed in forma pauperis was denied as incomplete. Rather than submitting an amended 2 application, Plaintiff elected to pay the filing fee; however, the check purporting to do so was 3 returned for insufficient funds. Although Plaintiff was given a further opportunity to pay the filing 4 fee, he elected not to do so, and instead, submitted a response which appears to dispute the 5 outstanding filing fee. The docket, however, clearly reflects an invoice from the Clerk’s Office 6 stating that Plaintiff’s check was returned for insufficient funds. (Dkt. No. 11.) 7 8 9 10 Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 8, 2017 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DENNIS LEMONT KNIGHT, Case No. 17-cv-05332-JSC Plaintiff, 8 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9 10 COLISEUM LEXUS OF OAKLAND, Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on November 8, 2017, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 18 19 20 Dennis Lemont Knight 1715 Julian Ct El Cerrito, CA 94530 21 22 Dated: November 8, 2017 23 24 25 Susan Y. Soong Clerk, United States District Court 26 27 28 By:________________________ Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 3

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?