Friede v. Prasak et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KENT A. FRIEDE,
No. 2:17-cv-00499 KJM GGH
DEEPAR PRASAK, et al.
Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, filed his original complaint and Motion for IFP
Status on March 8, 2017. ECF No. 1. On March 10, 2017 this court granted the Motion but
dismissed the complaint with permission to amend within 30 days in conformity with
requirements for the necessary scope of the amendment laid out in the Order. ECF No. 3. That
Order is incorporated into the instant Order and should be again reviewed by plaintiff to file any
On April 5, 2017 the plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 6, along with a
Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 7. On May 24, 2017 this court entered another Order
that dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend, again in conformity with
instructions included therein, and vacated the Motion for Summary Judgement as prematurely
filed, giving the plaintiff 45 days in which to file a Second Amended Complaint drafted in
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
July 7, 2017. At this point plaintiff has met some of the requirements of the two earlier
referenced Orders but still falls short of complying completely with the elements of those Orders.
Specifically, although plaintiff now states that his federal rights have been violated under Title
VII and 42 U.S.C. section 3601 et seq. based upon the alleged facts that he suffers from a
disability and, perhaps, racial discrimination. He also attempts to allege a supplemental state law
claim for violation of California Civil Code section 1941.4 regarding the implied warranty of
habitability. In order to perfect these claims he must do the following things in any further
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;
Plaintiff names a number of individual defendants but he does not state necessary
facts regarding what action each named defendant took, when he or she took the action, and how
the action impacted the federal rights that form the basis for his complaint;
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.
As a result of the foregoing it IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is dismissed, without prejudice;
The plaintiff shall have 45 days from the date of this Order to file a Third
Amended Complaint that conforms to the requirements laid out in this Order and the Order found
at ECF No. 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 24, 2017
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?