Kamath v. Alsup et al

Filing 25

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 08/29/2024. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2024)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RESHMA KAMATH,
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

WILLIAM ALSUP, et al.,

14

Case No.: 23CV06494-GPC
ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL
ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

Defendants.

15
16

On December 17, 2023, Plaintiff Reshma Kamath, an attorney proceeding pro se,

17

filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and other related state law claims against judicial

18

officers and court staff in the District Court for the Northern District of California. (Dkt.

19

No. 1, Compl.) Without having filed a proposed summons or served the complaint on the

20

defendants, over four months later, on April 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended

21

complaint. (Dkt. No. 17, Am. Compl.) This case was assigned to the undersigned judge

22

on May 7, 2024 pursuant to an order by the Ninth Circuit Chief Judge under the authority

23

of 28 U.S.C. § 292(b). (Dkt. Nos. 18, 19.)

24

Because Plaintiff had not filed a proposed summons on the amended complaint, on

25

June 14, 2024, the Court directed “Plaintiff to request a summons from the Clerk of Court

26

and serve Defendants with the complaint and summons as well as the supplementary

27

material required by N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 4-2 by July 29, 2024 or the Court will

28

dismiss the action without prejudice” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
1
23CV06494-GPC

1

(Dkt. No. 19.) Plaintiff did not respond or object to the Court’s order and to date, no

2

proposed summons or proofs of service of the complaint and summons have been filed.

3

Relying on its order, on August 2, 2024, the Court dismissed the action for failing to

4

serve and for failing to comply with a court order. (Dkt. No. 20.) On the same day,

5

Plaintiff filed a “demand to reinstate the case for Curriel’s (sic) failure to issue summons

6

and Curriel’s (sic) mismanagement of the case” claiming that the Court failed to issue the

7

summons and the undersigned had no authority to preside over this case. (Dkt. No. 21.)

8

On August 8, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate and provided

9

guidance as to her misunderstanding of the state of the case and granted her leave to file

10

an appropriate motion to vacate or set aside the dismissal of this case within 20 days of

11

the Court’s order, or it would dismiss the action with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 23.) On

12

August 10, 2024, instead of filing a motion to vacate or set aside the dismissal, Plaintiff

13

filed another baseless, inflammatory letter to the Court. (Dkt. No. 24.) Because Plaintiff

14

has failed to file a motion to vacate or set aside the dismissal, the Court DISMISSES this

15

civil action in its entirety without further leave to amend.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 29, 2024

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
23CV06494-GPC