Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01781/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01781-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

- 1 - 10cv1781

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GALEN LEFTON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv1781-LAB (NLS)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

GMAC MORTGAGE, et al.,

Defendants.

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

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

a claim or was frivolous or malicious. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to do both.

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-01781-LAB-NLS Document 9 Filed 04/19/11 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

- 2 - 10cv1781

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

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

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

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

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

order cautioned Lefton:

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01781-LAB-NLS Document 9 Filed 04/19/11 Page 2 of 2