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)

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