McBrien v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING FINAL EXTENSION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 5/28/10. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KAREN McBRIEN, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL, Defendants. / On March 24, 2010, this Court issued an order denying Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed her complaint with leave to amend. The Court found it was impossible to discern from Plaintiff's original complaint many of the essential details of the events that triggered the lawsuit, the legal theories under which she seeks relief, or the causes of action against any particular named defendant. Plaintiff failed to set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff was admonished that if she wished to pursue this action, she would have to file an amended complaint by April 2, 2010 and that failure to file a cognizable legal claim by this date would result in dismissal of this action with prejudice. On May 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "motion for extension of time to answer or defend." On May 5, 2010, the Court issued an order explaining that Plaintiff need not answer or defend and giving Plaintiff yet another extension of time to file an amended ORDER GRANTING FINAL EXTENSION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT No. C 09-05963 JSW

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The Court indicated that Plaintiff would have until May 24, 2010 to file an amended complaint and that failure to file a cognizable legal claim by this date would result in dismissal of this action with prejudice. On May 24, 2010, the Court received a motion for a second extension of time to answer or defend. Again, Plaintiff is prosecuting the action and need only file an amended complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 to continue to pursue this action. Because the Court has not found a viable complaint to have been filed, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is again DENIED. Should Plaintiff file a legally sufficient amended complaint, she need not re-submit the application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff shall have until no later than June 25, 2010 to file an amended complaint. Failure to file a cognizable legal claim by this date shall result in dismissal of this action with prejudice and there shall be no further extensions of time.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 28, 2010 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 KAREN McBRIEN, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL, Defendants. / Case Number: CV09-05963 JSW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on May 28, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Karen W. McBrien 3616 Far West Blvd. ##117-252 Austin, TX 78731 Dated: May 28, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk