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)
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?