Valerie Flores v. California Highway Patrol
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
I. Background
19 20 On October 22, 2024, Plaintiff Valerie Flores (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed her “Amended Complaint” (“First Amended Complaint” or “FAC”). 21 [Dkt. No. 4.] On March 26, 2025, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause by April 22 22, 2025 why the Court should not recommend that the FAC be dismissed as 23 duplicative (“OSC”).1 [Dkt. No. 11.] 24 On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff opposed the OSC, moved for consolidation of 25 her cases, sought reconsideration of the OSC, and noticed her appeal of the 26
27 1 This is one of three cases filed by Plaintiff that are currently in the Central 28 District of California. The others are Flores v. Vang, Case No. 5:24-cv-01347-MWC- 1 OSC. [Dkt. Nos. 12, 14, 15.] On April 22, 2025, Plaintiff moved to dismiss the 2 OSC as duplicative, seal this case in its entirety, add information to her 3 pleading, and enter default judgment on defendants. [Dkt. No. 16.] 4 On May 28, 2025, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of 5 jurisdiction because the OSC was not final or immediately appealable. [Dkt. 6 No. 17.] On June 20, 2025, the Ninth Circuit’s judgment took effect. [Dkt. 7 No. 18.] 8