Ladzekpo v. Hritz et al
Filing
32
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE to Plaintiff. Show Cause Response due by 2/17/2017. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 1/25/2017. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/25/2017: #1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (sisS, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
GODWIN GAMELI LADZEKPO,
Case No. 4:16-cv-01695-KAW
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO
PLAINTIFF
v.
9
10
M. HRITZ, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 30
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
On October 28, 2016, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss with leave to
13
amend. (Dkt. No. 30.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint no later than
14
December 16, 2016. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.
15
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to file the first amended complaint on or before February
16
17, 2017, and respond to this ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by explaining why he did not timely
17
file his amended complaint and why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
18
The first amended complaint and the response to the order to show cause should be filed
19
separately. Failure to timely respond to this order to show cause and file the first amended
20
complaint may result in this case being dismissed for failure to prosecute.
21
In amending his complaint, Plaintiff may wish to consult a manual the court has adopted to
22
assist pro se litigants in presenting their case. This manual, and other free information for pro se
23
litigants, is available online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. Plaintiff may also wish to
24
contact the Federal Pro Bono Project's Help Desk—a free service for pro se litigants—by calling
25
(415) 782-8982.
26
Plaintiff should be aware that an amended complaint will supersede or replace the original
27
complaint, and the original complaint will thereafter be treated as nonexistent. Armstrong v. Davis,
28
275 F.3d 849, 878 n.40 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Johnson v. Cal., 543 U.S.
1
499 (2005). The first amended complaint must, therefore, be complete, in itself, without reference
2
to the prior or superseded pleading, as “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint
3
which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567
4
(9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 25, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
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
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?