Pierre v. Niklaus et al

Filing 12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. The Court will delay dismissing this case until 1/17/2014. If no amended complaint has been filed by that date, the Court will dismiss this action sua sponte. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 01/02/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/2/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GEORGE PIERRE,

Case No. 13-cv-03803-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9
10

JENNY NIKLAUS, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 6

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Currently before the Court is the Administrative Motion for Dismissal Because No
Complaint Pending by defendants Jenny Niklaus and Teresa Schmitz. Dkt. No. 6.
Plaintiff George Pierre filed this case in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa

15

Clara. The complaint was dismissed by that court in its entirety with leave to file an amended

16

complaint by September 3, 2013. The case was removed to this Court on August 16, 2013. Dkt.

17

No. 1. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. On October 11, 2013, this Court issued an

18

Order to Show Cause ordering plaintiff to file an amended complaint by November 4, 2013. Dkt.

19

No. 7. The Court extended the deadline to file an amended complaint to November 20, 2013.

20

Dkt. No. 8. On November 20, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to remand, which the Court denied on

21

December 17, 2013. Dkt. Nos. 9, 11. As of today’s date, no amended complaint has been filed.

22

Under ordinary circumstances, the Court would dismiss this case at this time. But given

23

that plaintiff is pro se and that he did file something by the deadline to file an amended complaint,

24

albeit not the document required by the Court, the Court will delay dismissing this case until

25

January 17, 2014. If no amended complaint has been filed by that date, the Court will dismiss

26

this action sua sponte. Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689

27

(9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

28

Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil

1
2
3
4
5

procedure or the court’s orders).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 2, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2