Clark v. Farinas et al

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 2/19/2019 DENYING plaintiff's 14 motion to vacate the judgment. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LOUREECE STONE CLARK,

12

No. 2:17-cv-0727 JAM DB P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

DELL FARINAS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On July 18, 2018, the District Court judge assigned to this matter adopted the findings and

17
18

recommendations issued on June 19, 2018. (See ECF Nos. 11, 12, 13). As a result, the matter

19

was dismissed for failure to obey a court order, and the case was closed. (ECF No. 12).
On July 27, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the judgment. (ECF No. 14). The

20
21

motion, a forty-five page tome, is unintelligible and is completely unrelated to the claims in

22

plaintiff’s original complaint which was dismissed because he failed to amend it in a timely

23

manner.1 (Compare ECF No. 1, with ECF No. 14).

24
1

25
26
27

In addition, the record indicates that the dismissal order was twice returned to the court in
August 2018 as “undeliverable, not in custody” and as “unable to forward.” It appears that
plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which requires that a party appearing in
propria persona inform the court of any address change. More than sixty-three days have passed
since the first court order was returned by the postal service, and plaintiff has failed to notify the
court of a current address.

28
1

1

To the extent that the court could construe the motion as an amended complaint, an

2

amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is being alleged

3

against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal

4

of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what facts support the legal

5

claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended complaint must not require the

6

court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs

7

to submit.” Id. at 1180. Moreover, plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging

8

new, unrelated claims. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment,

10

filed July 27, 2018 (ECF No. 14) is DENIED.

11

Dated: February 19, 2019

12
13
14
15
16

DLB:13
DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS/clar0727.vac.mtn.den

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2