Torosian v. City of Fresno et al

Filing 10

ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/21/2014 striking 7 Second Amended Complaint filed by David Torosian.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID TOROSIAN,

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00128-LJO-SKO
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.

13
14
15

CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,
(Doc. 7)

16
17

Defendants.
___________________________________/

18
19
20
21
22

23

Plaintiff David Torosian filed a complaint on January 29, 2014, along with an
application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which was granted.
Plaintiff's complaint was screened by the U.S. Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2) and dismissed with leave to amend. On April 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint which was dismissed on May 8, 2014, with 30-days leave to amend. (Doc.

24
5.)
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, and on July 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge
issued Findings and Recommendations that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff was given 28 days to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations. On August

1

1

14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 7.) On the same day that

2

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint was entered on the docket, the Court adopted the

3

Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations, dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, and closed

4

the case.

5
6
7

Plaintiff failed to timely file a Second Amended Complaint or file objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recomnedations. As such, the Second Amended Complaint
filed on August 14, 2014, is STRICKEN as untimely.1

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

August 21, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
1

27
28

The Court notes the Findings and Recommendations were returned as undeliverable. The
Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff at the address on file. It is the
plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court approsed of his current address at all times. Pursuant
to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
2