Poorsina v. Bank of America, N. A. et al

Filing 31

Order. Signed on 7/5/2024 by Magistrate Judge Peter H Kang denying 30 Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration. Amended Complaint due by 8/2/2024.(jaf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 7 8 ALI POORSINA, 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Case No. 23-cv-06644-PHK Plaintiffs, 9 ORDER RE: “AMENDED COMPLAINT” v. BANK OF AMERICA, N. A., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 30. Defendants. 13 14 The Court previously dismissed pro se Plaintiff Ali Poorsina’s Complaint with leave to 15 amend. [Dkt. 28]. On July 2, 2024, Plaintiff Poorsina filed a document entered in the docket as 16 “Amended Complaint.” [Dkt. 30]. The full title of this document is “PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 17 LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM 18 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b)[.]” Id. However, this document is not an 19 Amended Complaint and does not conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Rather, after carefully reviewing 20 the document, this document is a motion or brief, because it presents legal citations and arguments 21 in an apparent attempt to discuss why an Amended Complaint could state a claim for relief and/or 22 why the Court’s dismissal of the original Complaint was incorrect. Id. 23 Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff Poorsina’s “Amended Complaint” as a request to 24 file a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 7-9(a), which requires the party to request 25 leave from the Court to file such a motion. The Court DENIES Plaintiff Poorsina’s request to the 26 extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the prior dismissal because Plaintiff Poorsina was already 27 given leave to file an amended complaint. [Dkt. 28]. The “Amended Complaint” is not a properly 28 presented Amended Complaint (if that was Plaintiff’s intention). Plaintiff Poorsina is given thirty 1 (30) days from the date of this Order to file a properly presented and formatted amended complaint, 2 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7 and 8 (and the Local Rules of this Court), which 3 alleges facts that would cure the deficiencies outlined in this Court’s pervious Order dismissing 4 Plaintiff Poorsina’s initial complaint without prejudice. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of 5 the case with prejudice. Plaintiff is reminded of the resources available to pro se litigants, identified 6 by the Court in the previous dismissal Order. 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 5, 2024 ______________________________________ PETER H. KANG United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?