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)

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 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 (415) 782-8982. 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

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?