Clifford C. Loyer et al. v. Los Angeles Sheriff's Department et al.

Loyer · United States District Court for the Central District of California · March 6, 2023 · No. 2:23-cv-1580-FWS-RAO

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an order to show cause in a pro se prisoner civil-rights class action. The court directed the plaintiffs to pay the filing fee or submit in forma pauperis materials and ordered Clifford C. Loyer to explain why the complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice because a pro se litigant may not represent a class.

Holdings

  1. A federal district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), including sua sponte in appropriate circumstances; plaintiffs were required to pay the filing fee or submit the appropriate in forma pauperis materials within thirty days or risk dismissal.
  2. A pro se litigant may not serve as the representative of a class because the right to proceed pro se is personal to the litigant and does not extend to representing other parties or entities.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiffs' failure to pay the civil filing fee or submit the required in forma pauperis materials could subject the action to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
  2. Whether a pro se prisoner may represent a putative class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (9)

  • Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962)(followed)
  • Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 693, 689 (9th Cir. 2005)(followed)
  • Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984)(followed)
  • Khalid v. Microsoft Corp., 409 F. Supp. 3d 1023, 1031 (W.D. Wash. 2019)(followed)
  • Reed v. Bd. of Prison Terms, 2003 WL 21982471, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2003)(followed)
  • Welch v. Terhune, 11 Fed. App'x 747, 747 (9th Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966)(followed)
  • C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…