Douglas v. City of Sacramento et al.

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/9/2016 ORDERING Joint Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is CONTINUED to 3/15/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire; the parties are cautioned that fail ure to timely file status reports or to otherwise comply with the scheduling conference order may result in sanctions, including a recommendation for dismissal or judgment; the Third Amended Complaint 19 is ORDERED STRICKEN from the docket.(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RAYMOND M. DOUGLAS,

11
12
13

No. 2:16-cv-0415 MCE AC (PS)

Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

RAYMOND M. DOUGLAS,

17
18
19
20

No. 2:16-cv-0375 MCE AC (PS)

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.
Defendants.

21
22

Plaintiff is proceeding in these actions pro se. The actions were referred to the

23

undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). The actions were related to each other on

24

April 29, 2016.

25
26
27

I. SERVICE
Both actions were set for an initial status conference on December 14, 2016. No
defendant has made an appearance, and there is no indication that any defendant has yet been

28
1

1

served with process. However, plaintiff has filed the required documents showing that he has

2

provided the U.S. Marshal with the materials needed to effect service in both cases. The court

3

will therefore continue the joint status conference for 90 days, to give the U.S. Marshal sufficient

4

time to serve process, and for defendants to respond and to prepare for the conference.

5

II. OPERATIVE COMPLAINT

6

On August 23, 2016, plaintiff filed Third Amended Complaints in both cases. See

7

Douglas v. City of Sacramento, 2:16-cv-0375, ECF No. 19; Douglas v. County of Sacramento,

8

2:16-cv-0415, ECF No. 17. These amended complaints will be stricken from the docket, because:

9

(1) in neither case did plaintiff obtain the required leave to file an amended complaint, see Fed. R.

10

Civ. P. 15(a)(2); and (2) in both cases, the amended complaints assert federal claims against

11

municipal defendants, even though those claims were previously dismissed from the cases with

12

prejudice, and the municipal defendants were dismissed without prejudice to renewal of the state

13

claims against them in an appropriate state forum.

14
15

Accordingly, the operative complaint in each case is the “Second Amended Complaint,”
filed on May 25, 2016 in both cases.

16

III. CONCLUSION

17

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1. The December 14, 2016 joint Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is CONTINUED to

19

March 15, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., before the undersigned. The instructions set forth in the

20

scheduling conference order in 16-cv-0375, ECF No. 24 ¶¶ 4-6, apply to both cases.

21

2. The parties are cautioned that failure to timely file status reports or to otherwise comply

22

with the above-referenced scheduling conference order may result in sanctions, including

23

a recommendation for dismissal or judgment.

24

3. The Third Amended Complaint in Douglas v. City of Sacramento, 2:16-cv-0375 (ECF

25

No. 19), is ordered STRICKEN from the docket;

26

////

27

////

28

////
2

1
2
3

4. The Third Amended Complaint in Douglas v. County of Sacramento, 2:16-cv-0415 (ECF
No. 17), is ordered STRICKEN from the docket.
DATED: December 9, 2016

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3