Friede v. Prasak et al

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/24/07 ORDERING that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; Plaintiff shall have 45 days from the date of this order to file a third Amended Complaint that co nforms to the requirements laid out in this order and the order found at ECF 3 . Plaintiff is advised that failure to conform to the requirements listed above may well result in a recommendation for dismissal of any further Amendment with prejudice. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENT A. FRIEDE,

12
13

No. 2:17-cv-00499 KJM GGH

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

14
15

DEEPAR PRASAK, et al.
Defendants..

16
17
18

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, filed his original complaint and Motion for IFP

19

Status on March 8, 2017. ECF No. 1. On March 10, 2017 this court granted the Motion but

20

dismissed the complaint with permission to amend within 30 days in conformity with

21

requirements for the necessary scope of the amendment laid out in the Order. ECF No. 3. That

22

Order is incorporated into the instant Order and should be again reviewed by plaintiff to file any

23

further pleadings.

24

On April 5, 2017 the plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 6, along with a

25

Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 7. On May 24, 2017 this court entered another Order

26

that dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend, again in conformity with

27

instructions included therein, and vacated the Motion for Summary Judgement as prematurely

28

filed, giving the plaintiff 45 days in which to file a Second Amended Complaint drafted in
1

1
2

conformity with the dictates of the Order. ECF No. 8
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint which is the subject of the instant order on

3

July 7, 2017. At this point plaintiff has met some of the requirements of the two earlier

4

referenced Orders but still falls short of complying completely with the elements of those Orders.

5

Specifically, although plaintiff now states that his federal rights have been violated under Title

6

VII and 42 U.S.C. section 3601 et seq. based upon the alleged facts that he suffers from a

7

disability and, perhaps, racial discrimination. He also attempts to allege a supplemental state law

8

claim for violation of California Civil Code section 1941.4 regarding the implied warranty of

9

habitability. In order to perfect these claims he must do the following things in any further

10
11
12
13

amendment:
1.

Identify the disability from which he suffers that allegedly led to his housing loss,

and/or his race and how it affected that loss if in fact he is alleging it did so;
2.

Plaintiff names a number of individual defendants but he does not state necessary

14

facts regarding what action each named defendant took, when he or she took the action, and how

15

the action impacted the federal rights that form the basis for his complaint;

16
17

3.

State facts regarding his claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability,

when the breach occurred, and how it affected the loss of housing about which he complains.

18

As a result of the foregoing it IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1.

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is dismissed, without prejudice;

20

2.

The plaintiff shall have 45 days from the date of this Order to file a Third

21

Amended Complaint that conforms to the requirements laid out in this Order and the Order found

22

at ECF No. 3.

23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff is advised that failure to conform to the requirements listed above may well result
in a recommendation for dismissal of any further Amendment with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 24, 2017
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2