Hudson v. Richmond Police Department

Filing 64

ORDER STRIKING PLEADING (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/29/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TORIANO GERMAINE HUDSON,

Case No. 15-cv-00787-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER STRIKING PLEADING

9
10

Re: Dkt. No. 62

DIAZ, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On April 19, 2016, the court determined that, liberally construed, the second amended

13

complaint stated a cognizable excessive force claim against several Richmond Police Department

14

officers but did not state a claim against the Richmond Police Department, and set a briefing

15

schedule for motions for summary judgment. (Docket No. 57.) In an order filed June 2, 2016, the

16

court reset the deadlines for the motions for summary judgment so that defendants’ motion for

17

summary judgment is now due on September 9, 2016. (Docket No. 61.) Thereafter, plaintiff filed

18

a “complaint for damages” on June 29, 2016, which again describes the events alleged in earlier

19

pleadings. (Docket No. 62.) Plaintiff did not move for leave to amend, nor did he explain why yet

20

another amendment was necessary or should be permitted in this case which is now more than

21

eighteen months old and in which plaintiff has repeatedly amended his pleading. The unpermitted

22

and unnecessary complaint for damages filed on June 29, 2016 (Docket No. 62) is STRICKEN.

23

The operative pleading remains the second amended complaint (Docket No. 47). The briefing

24

schedule set in the order filed June 2, 2016 remains in place.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 29, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge