Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00782/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00782-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331cv Fed. Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUCHICELA GALVEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 18cv782-LAB (AGS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS [Dkt. 10];

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH PREJUDICE

This is the second case Plaintiff Duchicela Galvez has filed pro se in this Court 

against the same defendant on the same set of facts. On March 28, 2018, she filed Case 

No. 18cv633-LAB, alleging that Defendant Wells Fargo violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in 

connection with its attempts to foreclose on her home. Wells Fargo filed a Motion to 

Dismiss and Galvez failed to oppose the motion, so the Court dismissed her case. See

Case No. 18cv633-LAB, Dkt. 10. On April 23, 2018, she filed her initial Complaint in the 

current case, which was nearly identical to her complaint in the previous case. On April 

27, 2018, the Court screened and dismissed her Complaint for failure to state a claim, but 

granted her leave to amend if she could fix the deficiencies the Court identified. Dkt. 3. 

Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint, which added only a single sentence and 

failed to correct the significant deficiencies the Court had flagged. Accordingly, the Court 

dismissed her First Amended Complaint with leave to amend, but warned that she was 

Case 3:18-cv-00782-LAB-AGS Document 12 Filed 10/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

not to “file[] the same pro forma complaint alleging violations under § 1983.” Dkt. 8. But

Galvez did just that – her Second Amended Complaint is an exact copy of the complaint 

from her previous action, with the only difference being that she increased her claim for 

damages from $1,250,000 to $1,500,000. 

On August 10, 2018, Wells Fargo filed this Motion to Dismiss Galvez’s Second 

Amended Complaint. As with her original case, Galvez failed to oppose this motion within 

the time required. After she missed her deadline to oppose, the Court vacated the hearing 

and gave her one additional week to file an opposition. The Court cautioned that if she 

failed to file an opposition, it would construe her silence as consent to Wells Fargo’s 

motion being granted. Dkt. 11. That week has come and gone, but Galvez still has not 

filed an opposition. Given her history of filing consecutive complaints but not opposing 

their dismissal, this Court can only conclude that she is more interested in delay than in 

litigating her claims. Wells Fargo’s Motion is GRANTED, (Dkt. 10), and Galvez’s Second 

Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Dkt. 9. The clerk is directed to 

close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2018

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-00782-LAB-AGS Document 12 Filed 10/30/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2