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).

Download PDF
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 The first amended complaint must, therefore, be complete, in itself, without reference 2 to the prior or superseded pleading, as “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint 3 which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.”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?