Mendoza v. Golden Valley Health Centers et al

Filing 9

ORDER DECLINING to Adopt 7 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING Plaintiff Thirty Days in Which to File an Amended Complaint, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/25/17. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCISCO MENDOZA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 v. GOLDEN VALLEY HEALTH CENTERS et al., No. 1:16-cv-01611-DAD-SAB ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF THIRTY DAYS IN WHICH TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 7, 8) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Francisco Mendoza, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in this action on 20 October 26, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) On December 12, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge screened 21 plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it with leave granted to file an amended complaint within 22 thirty days. (Doc. No. 2.) Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, but instead filed 23 objections to the screening order on January 20, 2017. (Doc. No. 3.) On April 28, 2017, the 24 magistrate judge construed plaintiff’s objections as a request for reconsideration of the screening 25 order and denied it; plaintiff was again ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 26 (Doc. No. 4.) After requesting and being granted an extension of time to file his amended 27 complaint (see Doc. Nos. 5–6), plaintiff again failed to file an amended complaint within the 28 extended time provided. Accordingly, on July 13, 2017, the magistrate judge issued findings and 1 1 recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 2 No. 7.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that 3 plaintiff could file written objections thereto within thirty days. (Id.) On August 14, 2017, rather 4 than filing objections to the findings and recommendations, plaintiff filed a motion for another 5 thirty-day extension of time to file an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 8.) In light of plaintiff’s 6 pro se status, the court will construe this most recent filing as an objection to the findings and 7 recommendations. 8 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having considered plaintiff’s objection, the court declines to adopt 10 the findings and recommendations recommending dismissal at this time and will instead grant 11 plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of the service of this 12 order. In his most recent filing, plaintiff contends that he just recently received certain documents 13 he requested in November 2016, due to an administrative error by the Equal Employment 14 Opportunity Commission. The court will allow plaintiff to file an amended complaint, but 15 plaintiff is advised that court orders are not mere suggestions to be disregarded at the party’s 16 convenience. If plaintiff is unable to comply with an order issued by the court, he must request 17 an extension of time prior to the expiration of the deadline. Moreover, given the number of 18 extensions of time already granted to plaintiff for this purpose, the court is not inclined to grant 19 any further extension of the time in which to file his amended complaint absent compelling 20 circumstances. 21 In filing an amended complaint, plaintiff is further advised to consider the following. 22 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims to his amended 23 complaint. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 24 Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each 25 named defendant did that led to the deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights, 26 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). “The inquiry into causation must be 27 individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose 28 acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 2 1 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be 2 [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 3 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). Finally, an amended complaint 4 supersedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012); 5 Valdez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851, 857 (9th Cir. 2011), and therefore must be “complete in 6 itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” see Local Rule 220. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. The court declines to adopt the July 13, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. 9 10 No. 8); 2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the 11 12 date of service of this order; and 3. Any failure on plaintiff’s part to file an amended complaint within the time provided 13 14 15 will likely result in dismissal of this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 25, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?