ORDER — No. 17-cv-00925-LB

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

SHRUTI SHETTY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00925-LB 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

Re: ECF No. 17

Shruti Shetty sued the defendants and generally alleged that they stole her intellectual property 

and identity, fraudulently redirected her investments, unjustly enriched themselves by diverting 

her royalties without her consent, and physically attacked her to prevent her from revealing their 

fraudulent practices.1 Ms. Shetty also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

2

The court 

reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e), and dismissed it for failure to state a claim for 

relief.3The court gave Ms. Shetty over three weeks to file an amended complaint (the deadline

was April 14, 2017), and warned her that failure to file the amended complaint by that deadline 

 

1 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 2, 20.

2 ECF No. 3.

3 Order – ECF No. 12.
ORDER — No. 17-cv-00925-LB 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

would result in the action being dismissed without prejudice.4 Ms. Shetty did not file an amended 

complaint.5

She instead filed a motion to “uphold order” and to “associate case.”6The court denied that 

motion because it did not comply with the court’s local rules and the court could not surmise the 

nature of Ms. Shetty’s request to “uphold order.”7The court gave Ms. Shetty an additional two 

weeks from the date of that order (to May 8, 2017) to file an amended complaint.8 But, again, she 

did not.9

Ms. Shetty instead filed yet another motion.10 In that motion, she asks the court to grant at 

least twelve forms of relief, including: “to not dismiss case,” “to move court case due to courts 

incapacity and lack of IP skill,” “to uphold graceful acceptance to out of court settlement,” to 

bring to notice false prisoner swap sanction/kidnap,” “for admonishment for serving blackmail and 

torture,” “for explanation of past rudeness and further attempt to explanation for why PACER 

access is critical,” “to compensate for false court actions,” “to at the courts expense sanction 

complete medical reimbursement and best medical services,” to “null and void any past trial 

settlement,” “to arrest orders against defendants,” “to close public or jury access permanently,” 

and “for expedited hearing for deadline in our of court settlement.”11

Ms. Shetty filed this same motion — which consists of twenty-seven pages of unintelligible 

single-spaced paragraphs — in four other cases.12 Three of those courts have already denied Ms. 

Shetty’s motion and dismissed her complaint.13 For example, Judge Gilliam denied Ms. Shetty’s 

 

4

Id. at 6.

5

See generally Docket.

6 ECF No. 13.

7 Order – ECF No. 14.

8

Id. at 2.

9

See generally Docket.

10 Motion – ECF No. 17.

11 See id. at 1–3.

12 See Case Nos. 4:16-cv-06012-HSG, 4:17-cv-00589-SBA, 4:17-cv-00928-JSW, and 4:17-cv-00933-

PJH.

13 See Case Nos. 4:16-cv-06012-HSG, 4:17-cv-00589-SBA, 4:17-cv-00933-PJH.
ORDER — No. 17-cv-00925-LB 3

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

Northern District of California

motion and dismissed the case without leave to amend because Ms. Shetty did not file an amended 

complaint despite the opportunity to do so.14 Judge Armstrong similarly denied Ms. Shetty’s 

motion after warning that the court would not “entertain any other motion or request until an 

amended complaint is on file.”15 And Judge Hamilton denied the motion “as incomprehensible.”16

(The court notes that cases 4:17-cv-00589-SBA and 4:17-cv-00933-PJH had already been 

dismissed, and the courts there denied the motion in part because Ms. Shetty did not satisfy the 

requirements for a motion for reconsideration. Both courts later denied Ms. Shetty’s subsequent

motion for reconsideration.) 

The court here denies the motion, too. The motion is incomprehensible and does not address 

the court’s orders regarding amendment of the complaint. The court dismisses the case for failure 

to prosecute. 

A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 

F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992). In determining whether to dismiss a claim for failure to 

prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, the court weighs the following factors: “(1) the 

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; 

(3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; 

and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 

F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260–61); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 

53 (9th Cir. 1995). These factors are a guide and “are ‘not a series of conditions precedent before 

the judge can do anything,’ but a ‘way for a district judge to think about what to do.’” In re 

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 

Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998)). Dismissal is 

appropriate “where at least four factors support dismissal, . . . or where at least three factors 

‘strongly’ support dismissal.” Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) 

 

14 Case No. 4:16-cv-06012-HSG, ECF No. 24.

15 Case No. 4:17-cv-00589-SBA, ECF No. 21.

16 Case No. 4:17-cv-00933-PJH, ECF No. 14.