Ladzekpo v. Hritz et al

Filing 34

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE to Plaintiff. Show Cause Response due by 3/24/2017. Amended Pleadings due by 3/24/2017; ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE to 4/18/2017 01:30 PM. Case Management Statements due by 4/11/2017. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 2/23/2017. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/24/2017: #1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dtmS, 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

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;
ORDER CONTINUING 2/28/17 CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

v.
9
10

M. HRITZ, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 30, 32

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. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. On January 25, 2017, the

15

Court issued an order show to cause to Plaintiff to both file the first amended complaint on or

16

before February 17, 2017, and to explain why he did not timely file his amended complaint and

17

why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 32.) To date, Plaintiff

18

has done neither.

19

Accordingly, the Court issues a SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, and Plaintiff is

20

ordered to file the first amended complaint on or before March 24, 2017, and respond to this order

21

by explaining why he did not timely file his amended complaint or respond to the January 25,

22

2017 order to show cause, and why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The

23

first amended complaint and the response to the second order to show cause should be filed

24

separately. Failure to timely respond to the second order to show cause and file the first

25

amended complaint will result in this case being dismissed without prejudice for failure to

26

prosecute.

27
28

In amending his complaint, Plaintiff may wish to consult a manual the court has adopted to
assist pro se litigants in presenting their case. This manual, and other free information for pro se

1

litigants, is available online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. Plaintiff may also wish to

2

contact the Federal Pro Bono Project's Help Desk—a free service for pro se litigants—by calling

3

[phone].

4

Plaintiff should be aware that an amended complaint will supersede or replace the original

5

complaint, and the original complaint will thereafter be treated as nonexistent. Armstrong v. Davis,

6

275 F.3d 849, 878 n.40 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Johnson v. Cal., 543 U.S.

7

499 (2005). The first amended complaint must, therefore, be complete, in itself, without reference

8

to the prior or superseded pleading, as “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint

9

which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

(9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).
In light of the foregoing, the Court continues the February 28, 2017 case management
conference to April 18, 2017. Case management statements are due April 11, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 23, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2