Poslof v. Arce et al

Filing 12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge P. Casey Pitts on 1/3/2025. (nmc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2025)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LONNIE LEE POSLOF (BE0659),
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

CARLOS ARCE, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 24-cv-05444-PCP

12
13

Lonnie Lee Poslof, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed several lawsuits. In the

14

instant action, Mr. Poslof filed a “Motion for Injunction and/or Restraining Order.” In response to

15

his “motion,” the Clerk of the Court informed Mr. Poslof that he needed to file his civil rights

16

complaint on the form provided to him, as well as complete an In Forma Pauperis affidavit or pay

17

the filing fee by September 27, 2024. See Dkt. Nos. 2 & 3. The deadline has long passed, and

18

Mr. Poslof has failed to file his complaint on form, file an IFP affidavit, or pay his filing fee.

19

In addition to the instant action, Mr. Poslof filed two petitions for writ of mandamus

20

raising claims nearly identical to those raised here. See Poslof v. Arce, Case No. 24-cv-05446-PCP

21

(N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 12, 2024); Poslof v. Warden et al., Case No. 24-05447-PCP (N.D. Cal. filed

22

Aug. 14, 2024). This Court issued an order to show cause why all three lawsuits, including the

23

instant action, should not be dismissed pursuant to Younger v, Harris, 491 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971),

24

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals

25

v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 (1983). The Court also notified Mr. Poslof that the failure to

26

voluntarily dismiss any cases may result in him having to pay the costs of filing each action. See

27

Dkt. No. 5.

28

In a subsequent filing, Mr. Poslof agreed to voluntarily dismiss the mandate petitions, but

1

not the instant action. Dkt. No. 6. However, in addition to failing to follow the Clerk’s instructions

2

to file the complaint on form and either file an IFP affidavit or pay the filing fee for the instant

3

action, Mr. Poslof has failed to adequately respond to the issues raised in this Court’s Order to

4

Show Cause: Mr. Poslof does not point to any evidence, beyond his own conclusory assertions,

5

showing that he exhausted all available remedies and does not explain why the Younger and

6

Rooker-Feldman doctrines do not apply to his claim. As noted in this Court’s order to show cause,

7

district courts are without discretion to ignore a failure to exhaust. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S.

8

81, 84 (2006).

9

Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders:

10

1. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a new lawsuit so that Mr. Poslof

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

can vindicate his rights at a future date once he has exhausted all remedies.
2. The Court notes that Mr. Poslof has also filed several motions and requests since he filed
his response to this Court’s Order to Show Cause. See Dkt. Nos. 7, 8, 9, & 10.

14

a. To the extent that Mr. Poslof is requesting to file a new complaint raising new

15

claims, he is free to do so. However, this Court notes that Mr. Poslof will again

16

be subject to the Clerk’s instructions and the legal doctrines outlined in this

17

Court’s order to show cause if he wishes to pursue the same claims raised in the

18

instant action. See Dkt. No. 5.

19

b. To the extent that Mr. Poslof requests that this Court consolidate all of his

20

lawsuits, including the instant action, his motion is DENIED as moot. The Court

21

notes that Mr. Poslof filed two additional lawsuits before responding to this

22

Court’s Order to Show Cause and has filed motions seeking the same injunctive

23

relief sought in the instant “motion.” See Poslof v. Arce et al., Case No. 24-cv-

24

06004-PCP (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 26, 2024), Dkt. No. 2; Poslof v. Adams et al.,

25

Case No. 24-cv-06146-PCP (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 30, 2024), Dkt. No. 2.

26

The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions and return Mr. Poslof’s documents

27

related to the instant action per his request. The Clerk is further requested to send Mr. Poslof a blank

28
2

1

civil rights complaint form. The Court will issue separate orders in Mr. Poslof’s remaining lawsuits

2

as appropriate.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 3, 2025

6
7
P. Casey Pitts
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3