Lefton v. GMAC Mortgage et al

Filing 9

ORDER of Dismissal: This action is dismissed with prejudice, both for failure to timely amend, and as a sanction for violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 4/18/11.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GALEN LEFTON,

12

CASE NO. 10cv1781-LAB (NLS)
Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.
13
14

GMAC MORTGAGE, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff Galen Lefton is proceeding in forma pauperis, so the Court was required,

18

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), to screen his complaint and to dismiss it if it failed to state

19

a claim or was frivolous or malicious.

20

On February 24, 2011, the Court issued its screening order, finding the complaint was

21

substantially identical to complaints filed in several other districts around the country. It

22

appeared Lefton had made no reasonable effort to confirm the complaint’s factual

23

allegations or legal arguments. The Court dismissed the complaint and ordered him, if he

24

wished to amend it, to simultaneously show cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing

25

a complaint that violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. He was given specific instructions concerning

26

how to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. Lefton was given until March 17, 2011

27

to do both.

28

///

-1-

10cv1781

1

On March 17, Lefton filed what purported to be a joint motion brought by him and by

2

Defendant GMAC Mortgage, agreeing to an extension of time to file an amended complaint.

3

In fact, GMAC did not join in this motion, and it was an ex parte motion brought by Lefton

4

alone. On March 22, the Court granted this motion in part, ordering Lefton no later than April

5

14, 2011 to show cause why he should nto be sanctioned under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. That

6

order cautioned Lefton:

7
8
9
10

Any response not filed within this time limit, or not in compliance with the
requirements set forth in the February 24 order, will be rejected, and
rejection of a submitted filing will not be good cause for any further
continuances. If Lefton shows cause, the Court will then issue an order
concerning amendment of his complaint. If he fails to show cause within the
time permitted, this action will be dismissed with prejudice both for failure to
amend as ordered and as a sanction.

11

Instead of obeying the Court’s order, Lefton on April 15 submitted an amended complaint

12

that also sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The amended

13

complaint was untimely under the Court’s orders of February 24 and March 22, and Lefton

14

has not met the conditions for obtaining more time. By a separate order, that amended

15

complaint is being rejected for filing. Lefton has never attempted to show cause why he

16

should not be sanctioned, and he has never complied with the Court’s previous orders. As

17

pointed out in those orders, although Lefton is proceeding pro se, he must obey the same

18

rules that govern other litigants, and he must also obey the Court’s orders to him. See King

19

v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

20
21
22
23

This action is therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, both for failure to timely
amend, and as a sanction for violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 18, 2011

24
25

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

26
27
28
-2-

10cv1781