Branch v. United States of America

Filing 12

ORDER dismissing complaint. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 5/5/2017. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/5/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (rmm2S, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CLARENCE BRANCH,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-00867-MEJ
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

12
13

The Court earlier granted Plaintiff Clarence Branch’s application to proceed in forma

14

pauperis and screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See March 2, 2017 Order, Dkt.

15

No. 5. The Court explained that the complaint did not meet the pleading requirements of Federal

16

Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), did not show that Plaintiff was entitled to relief, and did not allow

17

the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendants Plaintiff had named in the action are

18

liable for any misconduct. Id. at 3-4. The Court further explained the documents Plaintiff had

19

attached to the complaint did not clarify the basis for his allegations or his theory of the case. Id.

20

at 4. Because the complaint presented no cognizable legal theory, and because Plaintiff did not

21

allege “sufficient factual matter to state a facially plausible claim[,]” the Court dismissed the

22

complaint for failure to state a claim. Id. (citation omitted). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to

23

amend by April 3, 2017. Id.

24

Instead of filing an amended complaint by April 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of

25

Appeal” and a “Notice of Service” (Dkt. Nos. 6-7), and also appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of

26

Appeals (Dkt. No. 9). The undersigned previously noted it was not clear what the documents

27

attached to the Notice of Appeal were, or how they related to Plaintiff’s complaint. See April 5,

28

2017 Order, Dkt. No. 8. Although Plaintiff had not timely amended his complaint, the

1

undersigned found the multiple filings indicated Plaintiff intended to prosecute the action. Id. at 2.

2

The undersigned accordingly extended Plaintiff’s time to file an amended complaint until May 1,

3

2017. See id. The undersigned explained that “[i]f Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint

4

by that date, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.” Id. (emphasis in original).

5

On April 25, 2017, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal. See Dkt. No. 10 (“A review of

6

the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal the order challenged in

7

the appeal is not final or appealable.”).
As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. The Court

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

therefore dismisses this action without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the
file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14
15

Dated: May 5, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2