JC Graham v. City of Los Angeles et al
| JC Graham |
| City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti and City Council of the City of Los Angeles |
| 2:2023cv04349 |
| June 2, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Mark C Scarsi |
| Karen E Scott |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 17, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 JUDGMENT by Judge Mark C. Scarsi: Pursuant to the Courts Dismissal Order #9 , it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that this case is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(A). Plaintiff shall take nothing from this action. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc) |
Filing 9
DISMISSAL ORDER by Judge Mark C. Scarsi: Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause with an attached request to proceed in forma pauperis with different allegations. (Resp., ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff also submitted a First Amended Complaint. (FAC, ECF No. 8.). The allegations in one request or the other are necessarily untrueor the allegations in both are untrue. The Court infers that Plaintiff acted intentionally and in bad faith in filing his untrue submission(s) because Plaintiff signed the conflicting requests under penalty of perjury notwithstanding material differences between the two that cannot beexplained away by a scriveners error. (Req. 2; Resp. 4.) Accordingly, dismissal is mandatory, and the Court exercises its discretion to enter the dismissal with prejudice. The Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. (lc)
|
| Filing 8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendant City of Los Angeles amending Complaint - (Referred) #1 ; JURY DEMAND, filed by Plaintiff JC Graham. (et) |
| Filing 7 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff JC Graham to Order to Show Cause #5 . (et) |
| Filing 6 Mail Returned addressed to JC Graham re Notice of Reference to US Magistrate Judge (CV-25) - optional html form #4 (es) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER ON REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (NON-PRISONER CASE) by Judge Mark C. Scarsi: On the question of indigency, the Court finds that the party who filed the Request has not submitted enough information for the Court to tell if the filer is able to pay the filing fees. This is what is missing (SEE ATTACHMENT). As explained in the attached statement, the Request is DENIED because The action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted #3 . Within 30 days of the date of this Order, the filer must do the following: Consistent with this Order, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint and response to the Court's ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. If the filer does not comply with these instructions within 30 days, this case will be DISMISSED without prejudice (lc)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Mark C. Scarsi and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (lh) |
| Filing 3 REQUEST to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support filed by Plaintiff JC Graham. (lh) |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff JC Graham, (lh) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed against Defendants City Council of the City of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti. Case assigned to Judge Mark C. Scarsi and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. Filed by Plaintiff JC Graham. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons Request) (lh) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
