Sharp v. Stockton Enterprises

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/11/2017 ORDERING Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with the instructions given above, along with an amended request for IFP status that adequately explains the circumstances of her poverty. ALTERNATIVELY plaintiff may pay the filing fee. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CALYSTA SHARP,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-00219 KJM AC (PS)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

STOCKTON ENTERPRISES,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the

18

undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On June 12, 2017, the

19

court denied plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed her

20

complaint, and granted 30 days for plaintiff to renew her IFP application and submit an amended

21

complaint. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff requested 60 days to respond instead of 30 days (ECF No. 6),

22

and the court granted her request (ECF No. 7). In its order, the court noted that if plaintiff did not

23

timely comply with the order “the undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed.”

24

ECF No. 7 at 2. Plaintiff submitted a “response to order to show cause” (ECF No. 9) on August

25

8, 2017 and an “amended response to order to show cause” (ECF No. 10) on September 5, 2017.

26

Neither of plaintiff’s responses addresses the issues the court discussed in its June 12,

27

2017 order. In that order, the court noted that plaintiff has not provided any basis for this court’s

28

jurisdiction in her complaint. ECF No. 5 at 3. The court also noted that plaintiff has not
1

1

articulated any claim for relief. Id. Plaintiff states in her response that when she was employed

2

by defendant, she had a restraining order against her spouse, and her spouse told her that he had

3

affairs with the performers while the restraining order was active. ECF No. 9 at 7. This

4

information does not tell the court what plaintiff’s legal claim is, and does not show that this court

5

has jurisdiction to hear this case. Further, plaintiff’s responses are not an amended complaint.

6

Plaintiff is directed to file a new and complete complaint that articulates her claims and the basis

7

for this court’s jurisdiction in accordance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

8

Plaintiff is instructed to review the court’s June 12, 2017 order for additional information on the

9

requirements for a proper complaint.

10

With respect to plaintiff’s IFP application, the court found that plaintiff had not

11

demonstrated her inability to pay the filing fee. ECF No. 5 at 1. In her responses, plaintiff did

12

not include a renewed IFP application. ECF Nos. 9 and 10. She also has not paid the filing fee.

13

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this

14

order to file an amended complaint that complies with the instructions given above, along with an

15

amended request for IFP status that adequately explains the circumstances of her poverty.

16

Alternatively, plaintiff may pay the filing fee. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order,

17

the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed.

18

DATED: September 11, 2017

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2