Price v. Mabus

Filing 14

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER 12 AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/19/2017. (Fourth Amended Complaint due by 5/22/2017). (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EDWARD PRICE,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
RAYMOND E. MABUS, Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00702-LJO-BAM
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT
BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE
A CLAIM AND FAILURE TO OBEY A
COURT ORDER (Doc. 12)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO
FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff Edward Price (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this
action on May 19, 2016. (Doc 1).

21

On November 29, 2016, the Court issued a screening order dismissing Plaintiff’s third

22

amended complaint and granting him a final opportunity to amend his complaint within thirty

23

(30) days. (Doc. 10). The Court expressly warned Plaintiff that the failure to file an amended

24

complaint in compliance with the Court’s order would result in this action being dismissed for

25

failure to state a cognizable claim and failure to obey a court order. (Id. at 6). On December 29,

26

2016, in lieu of a fourth amended complaint, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court addressed to

27

Defendant Raymond E. Mabus in support of his complaint. (Doc. 11).

28

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint, on January 13, 2017, the Court
1

1

issued an order directing Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not be

2

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s November 19, 2016 screening order

3

and for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 12). On January 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed an apparent

4

response to the Court’s order to show cause, in the form of a letter to the Secretary of the Navy

5

complaining of discrimination prior to his termination from the Fleet Logistics Center at NAS

6

Lemoore, California. (Doc. 13).

7

Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause demonstrates to the Court that Plaintiff is

8

attempting to prosecute this action. In an abundance of caution, Plaintiff will be given an

9

additional thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint in this action. Plaintiff’s amended

10

complaint should be a short and plain statement of his claims, the factual allegations supporting

11

his claims, and a statement regarding the relief he is seeking from the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

12

Plaintiff must state what each defendant did or did not do that led to the deprivation of his rights.

13

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948-49 (2009). Further, Plaintiff’s

14

amended complaint must be “complete in itself” without reference to any prior complaint filed in

15

this action. Local Rule 220.

16

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1. The Order to Show Cause issued on January 13, 2017, is DISCHARGED;

18

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a

19

fourth amended complaint; and

20

3. If Plaintiff fails to file a fourth amended complaint in compliance with this order, this

21

action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a

22

cognizable claim.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 19, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2