Clark v. Boyle et al

Filing 35

ORDER RE STATUS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/29/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

PETER CLARK,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. C 12-3559 RS
ORDER RE STATUS

14
15

CHARLES BOYLE, et al.,

16

Defendants
____________________________________/

17
18

By order filed January 17, 2013, the original complaint in this action was dismissed pursuant

19

to 28 U.S.C. §1915, with leave to amend. After requesting and being granted several extensions of

20

time, pro se plaintiff Peter Clark eventually filed an amended complaint. The adequacy of that

21

complaint for pleading purposes, however, has never been formally evaluated because Clark

22

represented he was seeking counsel and that further amendments would be forthcoming. Based on

23

an initial review, the amended complaint has not cured many of the deficiencies previously

24

identified, and it may again be subject to dismissal.

25

Clark has responded to prior orders to show cause why the action should not be dismissed

26

for failure to prosecute by listing various health, financial, and other difficulties he has encountered,

27

and he has reported his continuing efforts to obtain counsel. He has also suggested that legal

28

proceedings in other courts may have a bearing on his claims in this action, and that relevant

1

decisions in those matters have been or are imminent. At this juncture, further indefinite delay will

2

potentially cause undue prejudice to any defendants that may eventually be called on to respond to

3

the action. Accordingly, no later than August 22, 2014, Clark shall file either (1) a voluntary

4

dismissal of this action, (2) a second amended complaint, or (3) a statement that he intends to stand

5

on the existing first amended complaint. If Clark fails to file anything, this action will be dismissed

6

without further notice, for failure to prosecute. If Clark files a second amended complaint or a

7

statement that he elects not to amend, the adequacy of the relevant pleading will be evaluated and a

8

further order will issue in due course.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Dated: 7/29/14
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2