EXHIBIT 27MELaSS4y BAlinbsos-psc-sP Documents Filed 0v08/14 Pagh I ‘oie4rpane ID Fah24 (2153/2 RVERSIDE DR.,SViTE 46S 1/8/14 2D BH cg cn sabalini® yleesirm | | l, "8? IN THE UNLTED STATES DISTRICT COURT ae FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Melissa Balin, I/S 21 DAYS Plaintiff, v. County of Los Angeles, Ciyortosangees, ' CY13-09395 se (Sf) City of Long Beach, VERIFIED County of Long Beach, 1983 COMPLAINT LA Superior Court; LA Sheriff's Department; LAPD; Jury Trial Demanded LBPD; Los Angeles City Attomey’s Office Case No: ICDA, @i2m9: See attached List of Defendants numbered 1-96 JOUN DOES 1-10¢ Acting individually and in their official capacities. PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF COMPLAINT usiperncr cost pec 20 2013 |cannBAU BSTAICT OF CAL FORIMA| * Plaintiff, Melissa Balin, Pro Se, for a formal federal complaint of substantive due process violations agai Defendants, City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, County of Long Beach, LA Superior Court, LAPD; LA, Sheriff s Department; ICDA; JOHN DOES 1-100 aka LAPD Officer Winter; Et. Al. (see attached List of Defendanis/Complainis numbered I- 96); All Acting individually and in their official capacities Under the Color of Law in flagrant malfeasances and obstructions of Justice that should shock the conscience of any court, let alone be committed by one; including but not imited to: 1) Directly participated in the wrongs; or 2) Knew about the wrongs but did not try to stop or fix it; and/or 3) Failed to oversee the people who caused the wrongs, such as by hiring unqualified people or failing to adequately train the staff: or 4) Conspired in creating a policy or custom that allowed the wrongs to occur; that resulted in the most eruel AND unusual punishment ofa pregnant American member of the media; BY deprivation of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, on the most fundamental of levels; through “Trial By Ordeal”, a process deemed “cruel SEP 26 235 and unusual” in the 1600". Aitidawit SEE ATTACHED: NQTARY CeRTinioaTe Dimes Nay Peau wn nu eae RB 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MELISSA BALIN, ) Case No. CV 13-9395-PSG (SP) Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING v. } COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants. i INTRODUCTION On January 8, 2014, plaintiff Melissa Balin, proceeding pro se and in forma ipauperis, filed a civil rights complaint in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Plaintiff alleges a wide variety of claims against more than one hundred defendants larising from her November 2011 arrest and subsequent incarceration. ‘After careful review and consideration of the allegations of the complaint lunder the relevant standards, the court finds for the reasons discussed hereafter that Ithe complaint suffers from numerous deficiencies. Accordingly, the court finds theMIME-Version:1.0 From:cactl_ecfmail@cacd.uscourts.gov Tos Bec: Melissa Balin 10153 1/2 Riverside Drive Suite 465 ‘Toluca Lake CA 91602 Case Participants: Judge Philip S. Gutierrez (crd_gutierrez@cacd uscourts.gov), Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym (crd_pyin @cacd.uscourts.gov, sheri_pym@ cacd.uscourts.20v) —Non Case Participants: ~-No Notice Sent: Meessage-Id:<17268849@ cacd.uscourts.gov>Subject:Activity in Case 2:13-cv-09395-P3G-SP Melissa Balin v. City of Los Angeles et al Order Content-Type: texthum! ‘This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system, Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. **eNOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Notice of Electronic Fiting “The following transaction was entered on 4/3/2014 at 3:40 PM PDT and filed on 4/2/2014 coe Ge Meta Bains Cy of Lan Ane cad Se, CHORES SP epee ctu gg BMD ATSAD, [Nair hepdfcad snare gvkic 01 $686907 ASTON n= 90mag na-MACICHp topes pose) Docket Text: ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym,Within 30 days of the date of this order, or by May 2, 2014, piaintiffmay file a First Amended Complaint to attempt to cure the deficienciesdiscussed (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (ka) 13-cv-09395-PSG-SP Notice lias been electronically mailed to: 13-cy-09395-PSG-SP Notice has heen delivered by First Class U. S. Mail or by other means BY ‘THE EILER to: ‘Melissa Balin 10153 1/2 Riverside Drive Suite 465 ‘Toluca Lake CA 91602|should be limited to non-immune defendants and those defendants against whom w plaintiff has viable civil rights claims. 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 4 1) Within 30 days of the date of this order, or by May 2, 2014, plaintiff 5 may file a First Amended Complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies 6 discussed above. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail plaintiff a 7 blank Central District civil rights complaint form to use for filing the 8 First Amended Complaint, which plaintiff is encouraged to utilize. 9 2) If plaintiff chooses to file a First Amended Complaint, plaintiff must 10 clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First ul Amended Complaint,” it must bear the docket number assigned to this, 12 case, and it must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety, preferably on 13 the court-approved form. The First Amended Complaint must be 4 complete in and of itself, without reference to the original complaint 1s or any other pleading, attachment or document. 16 An amended complaint supersedes the preceding complaint. Ferdik v. 17 |Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). After amendment, the court will 18 |ireat all preceding complaints as nonexistent, Id. Because the court grants plaintiff 19 fleave to amend as to all her claims raised here, any claim that was raised in a 20 |preceding complaint is waived if it is not raised again in the First Amended 21 | Complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 201 22 Plaintiff is cautioned that her failure to timely comply with this Order 23 |may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 24 IDATED: April 2, 2014 26 27 28 34. SHERIPYM United States Magistrate JudgeUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL “Date _ April 2, 2014 CV 13-9395-PSG (SP) MELISSA BALIN v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al. sheri Pym, United States Magistrate Judge ‘None ‘None Kimberly 1. Cartor Deputy Clerk ‘Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No, Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attomeys Present for Defendant: None Present ‘None Present Proceedings: (in Chambers) Order Denying Request for Service by Marshal Without Prejudice 3, 2014, plaintiff filed a Request for Service by Marshal (docket no. ice of the complaint and summons on all named. Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend '5 Request for Service by Marshall is DENIED ect to any First On January 1 12), asking the court to order serv defendants. In light of the court's that is being issued this day, plaintift’ WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may renew the request with resp Amended Complaint she may file. Beso oem GRIC INUTES- GENERAL PetoUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Sie No CV 13-9395 PSG IPR») Melissa Balin v. City of Los Angels, et = + The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge ‘Wendy K. Hernandez Not Present nla Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plait iff(s): ‘Attorneys Present for Defendant( 's): Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (in Chambers) Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal of Claims against Magistrate Judge Pym Pro se Plaintiff Melissa Balin (“Plaintiff”) initiated this suit on December 20, 2013 against ninety named Defendants and six groups ‘of Doe Defendants. Dits. #1, 3. The case was vererved to Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym for pretrial proceedings. Dts. # 11, 13. On April 2, 201d, Magistrate Judge Pym dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. # 14. Plaindiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on May 2, 2014. Dit. # 16. The FAC names Magistrate Judge Pym as a defendant. See FAC 4 96. Teappears to the Court that Plaintiff's claims against Magistrate Judge Pym are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. “(Judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from iifimnate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991), “Judicial immunity apoties however erroneous the [judge’s] act may have been, and Rowers injurious in its sequences it may have proved to the plaintiff.” Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th 1986) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). judge lacks immunity only when She or he “acts in the clear absence of al jurisdiction... or performs an act thet is nit judicial in anare.” Id. Gnternal quotation marks and citations omitted). “A clear absence of all jurisdiction aang aclear absence of zl subject matter jurisdiction.” Mullis v. U.S. Bane Court for the Dior of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1389 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). Plaintiff's allegations against Magistrate Judge Pym are based entirely on her actions as 2 judge. See FAC (9 96, 305-307 & Count Forty-Nine. Further, Plaintiff has not shown that aco) SAL SENOTES - GENERAL PagersUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL cv 13-9395 PSG (PRE) = Melissa Balin v. City of Los Angeles, et al. Magistrate Fudge Pym acted in the “clear absence of al subject macht jurisdiction.” See Mullis, Mage 9d a1 1389. Although the FAC suggests “[it may be that Judge Pym s ruling was absent 28 adiotion whatsoever.” see FAC‘ 306 (emphasis added), that statement docs 0 allege ay avloar abyence” of any jurisdiction, and the FAC does not explain why Plaintiff believes Magistrate Judge Pym did not have jurisdiction. As aresult, i appesss that the judicial sinmmunity doctrine bars Plaintiffs claims against Magistrate Judge Pym. plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later than May 23, 2014 why her claims against Magistrate Judge Pym should not be dismissed on the basis of judicial immunity, If Plaintiff does not respond by the close of business on May 23, 2014, her claims against Magistrate Judge Py will be dismissed, without leave to amend. ET IS SO ORDERED. aay SRL NTS-CENEEAT,UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL Case No. CV 13-9395-PSG (JPR) Date: May 15, 2014 Title: Melissa Balin v. City & County of Los Angeles et al DOCKET ENTRY: Order Denying Request for Service by U.S. Marshal PRESENT: HON. JEAN P. ROSENBLUTH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Lisa Bernson nla Deputy Clerk Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None Present None Present PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) On May 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for service of the First Amended Complaint by the U.S. Marshal. The request is DENIED. The Court is still in the process of screening the FAC under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and will order service of it, or portions of it, only ifit is not frivolous, states a claim on which relief may be granted, and does not seek monetary relief against defendants who are immune from such suit. MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk LBE CIVIL-GENCase 2:13-cv-09395-PSG-JPR Document 24 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1of1 Page ID #2458 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL Case No. CV 13-9395-PSG (JPR) Date: May 15, 2014 Title: Melissa Balin v. City & County of ngeles DOCKET ENTRY: Order Denying Request for Service by U.S. Marshal PRESENT: HON. JEAN P. ROSENBLUTH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Lisa Berson —a Deputy Clerk ‘Goure Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None Present None Present PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) On May 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for service of the First Amended Complaint by the U.S. Marshal. The request is DENIED. The Court is still in the process of screening the FAC under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and will order service of it, ‘or portions of it, only if itis not frivolous, states a claim on which relief may be granted, and does not seek monetary relief against defendants who are immune from such suit. MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk LBE CIVIL-GENUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MELISSA BALIN Case No. CV 13-9395-PSG (JPR) Plaintiff Vs. POINT OF CLARIFICATION CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et. al. | Defendants On June 23, 2014, Magistrate Judge Jean Rosenbluth, postmarked an Order Dismissing Action With Leave To Amend, backdated June 20,2014. Magistrate Judge Jean Rosenbluth had several material errors in fact that are indeed of prima facie relevance to the case itself, including, but not limited to, the very date of filing, which Judge Rosenbluth erroneously states occurred on January 8, 2014, when it very clearly was filed and conformed by the Central District Court of California on-DECEMBER 20, 2013, and my in Forma Pauperis fee waiver was issued on December 23, 2013. It is worth noting that on January 11, 2014, | formally REFUSED CONSENT TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANDLING THIS MATTER OF CAPITOL IMPORTANCE TO THE MEMORY OF MY UNBORN CHILD CONCEIVED IN THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF FREEDOM & PEACE, ON THE STEPS OF LOS ANGELES CITY HALL; AND THE WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF MY FIRST PREGNANCY EXERTED UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW. it would appear the Court is frustrated by the Plaintiff's refusal to dismiss Defendants that the court alleges to be protected by absolute immunity. The Plaintiff respectfully submits that she is not required to Obey ‘an unlawful order exerted under color of authority by the very Judges invaginated in the corruption itself, who may or may not have filed a “0” on their Form 700s; may or may not be accepting “Cafeteria Payments” by the County of Los Angeles; and may or may nat even have a valid sworn oath of office on file with the Judiciary; AND MAY OR MAY NOT BE COMPLICIT IN RICO VIOLATIONS Please note that the Courts’ attempts at running out of the clock like a poor sportsman on a high schoo! football team, are unlikely to succeed, as there is NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THE MURDER OF A FETUS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THIS SHALL SERVE AS A FORMAL DECLARATION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS: I REFUSE CONSENT TO YOUR FAKE DISMISSAL WITHOUT CAUSE. | AM UNDER DURES. Pro Se Plaintiffs are not treated as per their constitutional rights by the Central District Court. We The People, Demand an Investigation by the Criminal Grand Jury, for allegations of unconstitutional procedures and policies exerted against our most vuinerable citizens. Declared Under Penalty of Perjury, ) A y . chase —UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES JUDGES This case has been assigned to District Judge Fernando M. Olguin and to Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky ‘The case number on all documents filed with the Court should read as follows: _2:14-cv-05697-FMO RZ) Pursuant to General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Magistrate Judge has been designated to hear discovery—related motions. All discovery-related motions should be noticed on the calendar of the Magistrate Judge. Clerk, U.S. District Court July 22.2014 By Date Deputy Clerk ATTENTION A copy of this Notice must be served on all parties served with the Summons and Complaint (07, in cases removed from state court, on all parties served with the Notice of Removal) by the party who filed the Complaint (or Notice of Removal). cvs oan "NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT TO UNITED STATES JUDGESCase 2:14-cv-05697-FMO-RZ Document5 Filed 07/25/14 Page 1 of 112 Page ID #9 || MICHIARL N. FEUER, City Attorney (SBN 111529x THOMASH PETKRS Chie? Assistins City Antorey 2| CORY M, BRENTE, Stpervising Assistant a City ‘Attomey (SBN 115453) ELIZABETS T, FITZGURALD Deputy City Attorney (SBN 158917) 3] KELLY N. KADES, Deputy City ’Aeendy (SBN 1950: 4 | 200 North Main Street 6th Fleor, City ail Bast ; | Los Ange les, ‘A, 90012-4129 5 | Bmail: Rel g | Telephone: “(213) 9 7 | Attomeys for Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | MELISSA BALIN, individually CASE NO, CV14-05697 FMO (RZ) é ; Hon. Fernando M, Olguin - Com. - 22, 5% i2| And Asa ciass Fion. Mag. Ralph Zarefsicy- Ctrm. 540. ‘ioybat representative, iB ia DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS if Plaintiffs, ANGELES'S NOTICE OF ay BELATED Case: REQUEST TO 15% Hae cne= 15 | CTY & COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, PREVUDICE, EXISTS; DECLARATION OF 17 [es public ensties KELLY N. KADES a Defendants. {Courtesy Copy ofthis fing soo served upon ' ‘Megistrate Judge Jean Rosenbluth (Crm. A-Sth i Floor-Spring St), currently assigned Case No. CV - 13-9395 PSG (TPR), Melissa Balin +. City of Los 20 Aageles, at al.) ‘© THE HONORABLE COURT Al PLAINTIFF, IN PROSE: 23 | Pursuant to Local Rule 83-1.3.1, Defendant City of Los Angeles requests that 24 | this case be related to Melissa Balin v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. CV 13-9395 25 | PSG (TPR) (originally Case No. CV 13-9395 PSG (SP)), and transferred to Magistrate ige Jean Rosenbluth, as it relates to identicel claims and the same defendants as those 27 | encompassed in the CV 13-9395 PSG (JPR) lawsuit. See, Civil Docket for Case No. CV 28 | 13-9395 PSG (JPR) and Court orders dated 4/2/14 (Document 14; this order lists theUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Melissa Balin Tcasevunmex CV 14-05697 FMO(RZx} PLAINTIENS) v City of Los Angeles et al ‘ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT ‘TO GENERAL ORDER 14.03 {RELATED CASES) | DEFENDANTS). | CONSENT Thereby consent to the transfer of the above-entilled case to my calendar, pursuant to General Order 14-03. fit & Bn Bef Philip $. Gutierrs Date United States District Judge DECLINATIO: Thereby decine to transfer the above-cntitled case to my calendar he reasons set forth: a Date REASON FOR TRANSFER AS INDICATED BY COUNSEL Case CV 13-09395 PSGYPR) and the present case: ‘Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings or events; or or determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or Ap For other reasons would entafl substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges; or Involve one or more defendants from the criminal case in common, and would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges (applicable only on civil forfeiture action). OBB => o NOTICE TO COUNSEL FROM CLERK to the above transfer, any discovery maters thet are or may be referred to a Magistrate Judge are hereby Purswan ed from Magistrate Judge Zarefi to Magistrate judge Rosenbluth ‘Om all documents subsequently filed in this case, please substitute the initials PSGQPRs)_after the case num! in place of the initials of the prior judge, so that the case number will ead _CV 14-05697 PSGQPRx)_. This is very important because the documents are routed to the assigned judges by means of these initials cor [Previous Judge [States Clerk ape ORDER TE TRANSFERT TTS GENERAL ORDER Tos ead aaywre & Ree pause ee CES SE GRSSctai kb ee ete oe. 4 ae UNITED STATES DISTRICT couRT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MELISSA BALIN, Case No. CV 13-9395-ps@ (JPR) Plaintiff, TUDGMENT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al ) ) } ) } ? ) } ) } dante ——_______Defsndants. , Pursuant to the Order Dismissing Action for Willful Refusal to Prosecute and Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b) (6), TT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed with prejudice. f2 fer A LIP S_ GUTIERREZ S. DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: August 7, 2014UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL CV 14-5697 PSG (IPRx) . 4 August 13, 2014 Melissa Balin v. City and County of Los Angeles “Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge Wendy K. Hernandez Not Present n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorneys Present for Defendant(s): Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order REFERRING Case to Magistrate Judge The allegations in this case are closely related to the claims asserted in Plaintiff's previous lawsuit, Melissa Balin v. City of Los Angeles, CV 13-9395 PSG (JPRx). Magistrate Judge Rosenbluth is already familiar with those allegations. Accordingly, in the interests of judicial efficiency, the Court REFERS this case to Magistrate Judge Rosenbluth FOR ALL PRETRIAL MATTERS, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 IT IS SO ORDERED. co: Magistrate Judge Besa wey GEE MINUTES - GENERAL Pagetwor Auner YN a 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MELISSA BALIN, Case No. CV 14-5697-PSG (JPR) Plaintiff, JUDGMENT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., ) ) ) ) ) ) : ) Defendants. ) ) IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed. DATED: September 23, 2014 Ly A 7. 4 PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ 0.8. DISTRICT JUDGEwi 4 5 6 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA , 19 | MEETSSA BALIN, ) Case No. CV 14-5697-PSG (JPRx) ) Plaintiffs, ) 11 ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND ie vs. ) ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE ) CITY OF LOS ANGELES et ) 13] al ) ) 14 Defendants. ) 15 16 On dune 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed pro per a “Complaint for 17] injunctive Relief Complex Class Action Jury Trial Demanded” in 18] Los Angeles County Superior Court. Defendant City of Los Angeles 19 | removed it to this Court on July 22, 2014. (Defendant County of 20 || Los Angeles has apparently never been properly served.) On 21} august 25, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in 22) writing within 21 days why her lawsuit should not be dismissed 23 | because it is a putative class action, which cannot be brought by 24a pro per plaintiff. The Court expressly warned Plaintiff that 25\|it she failed to “timely and sufficiently” respond to the OSC, 26 | her lawsuit could be dismissed for that reason as well as those 27 outlined in the OSC. To date Plaintiff has not filed any 28 | responseCOIAARARYNE 10 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 B 24 26 27 28 Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988), examined when it is appropriate to dismiss a plaintiff's lawsuit for failure to prosecute. See algo Link v, Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) ("The power to invoke [dismissal] is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.”). In determining whether to dismiss a pro se plaintiff's action for failure to prosecute, a court must consider “(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 the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits[;] and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440 (internal quotation marks omitted). Unreasonable delay creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice to the defendants that can be overcome only with an affirmative showing of just cause by the plaintiff. Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, the first, second, third, and fifth Carey factors militate in favor of dismissal. In particular, Plaintiff has not responded to the OSC. ‘Thus, she has not rebutted the presumption of prejudice to Defendants. No less drastic sanction is available because, as the Court noted in its August 25 Order, the lawsuit does not raise any claims solely on Plaintiff’s behalf," and as a pro per plaintiff she cannot prosecute claims as the ‘As the Court explained in that Order, even if it did those claims are likely barred because they were previously dismissed by the Court with prejudice.representative of other people. Moreover, as also explained in the August 25 Order, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she is entitled to the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Court has no way to move this case forward. Although the fourth Carey factor weighs against dismissal - as it does in every case ~ together the other factors outweigh the public’s interest in disposing of the case on its merits. OIrAnR YD ORDER 9 Accordingly, this action is dismissed (1) pursuant to the 10} Court’s inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious 11] disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to 12] prosecute, (2) because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the 13] court’s Osc, and (3) for the reasons outlined in the Court’s 14] august 25, 2014 Order 15 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 16 17] DATED: September 23. 2014 18 19 | Presented by: 24 25 26 a 28 SEP 2B 2015 3 a Aichi Iti eRe