Jones v. James et al

Filing 9

ORDER Striking Documents 8 Notice (Other) filed by Wendy Jones, 7 Declaration in Support filed by Wendy Jones, 6 Amended Complaint filed by Wendy Jones. 6 is not an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff may still file her amended complaint by July 31, 2014. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 7/18/2014. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WENDY JONES,

Case No. 14-cv-02763-KAW

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S
DOCUMENTS

v.
9
10

JEREMY JAMES, et al.,

Dkt. Nos. 6-8

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On June 24, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Wendy Jones’s complaint with leave to

14

amend, because her complaint failed to provide any facts upon she seeks relief. (Dkt. No. 5.)

15

Based on the defendants named, and Plaintiff’s residence, however, it appeared that this action

16

may have been filed in the wrong U.S. District Court, as all of the parties and the incident appear

17

to be located in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Id.

18

Thus, the Court asked Plaintiff to determine whether she had filed the case in the proper

19

district court, and, if so, gave her until July 31, 2014 to file an amended complaint. Id. If Plaintiff

20

filed her case in the wrong district, the Court advised that she file a voluntary dismissal in this case

21

and refile her case in the Eastern District where venue is proper. Id.

22

On July 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed three documents, one of which appears to be an attempt at

23

an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 6.) In fact, it is not an amended complaint, but merely a cover

24

sheet with an attached declaration filed in Tuolumne County Superior Court in a juvenile court

25

action involving Plaintiff’s minor daughters. Id. Plaintiff also filed a letter stating that she “would

26

be adding a list of requirements done to me shortly following this letter.” (Dkt. No. 8.) These are

27

not amended complaints, and, therefore, are stricken.

28

Additionally, Plaintiff filed an affidavit in support of her application to proceed in forma

1

pauperis. (Dkt. No. 7.) Plaintiff’s IFP application, however, was granted by the undersigned on

2

June 24, 2014, so any further information is not required. (See Order granting IFP application,

3

Dkt. No. 4.) Thus, this document is also stricken as an improper court filing.

4

Accordingly, document numbers 6-8 are stricken, but Plaintiff may still file her amended

5

complaint by July 31, 2014. The caption on the first amended complaint should be “First

6

Amended Complaint.” In addition, Plaintiff is a “plaintiff” rather than a “prosecutor,” and the

7

adverse parties named are “defendants” rather than “wrongdoers.” Again, Plaintiff’s amended

8

complaint should not include her social security number, fingerprints or postage stamps, and need

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

not be notarized. Also, if Plaintiff has a parallel state court action pending involving the same
facts and allegations, she should not be filing a case in federal court.
As previously provided, if Plaintiff’s action is improperly venued in the Northern District,
she should file a voluntary dismissal and refile her case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the case may be transferred to the Eastern District
on the Court’s own motion without her consent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 18, 2014
______________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2