Shetty v. Cisco Systems

Filing 24

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Re Docket Nos. 22 , 23 . Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 5/18/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SHRUTI SHETTY, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No.16-cv-06012-HSG ORDER DISMISSING CASE v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 22, 23 CISCO SYSTEMS, Defendant. 12 13 On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff Shruti Shetty filed a pro se complaint against Defendant 14 Cisco Systems, purportedly brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 15 employment discrimination, along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. On April 10, 16 2017, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 because the 17 complaint did not set forth any facts that would support a cognizable claim. Dkt. No. 21. The 18 Court instructed Plaintiff that she had until May 8, 2017, to file an amended complaint and 19 cautioned that “failure to file an amended complaint by this deadline may result in the dismissal of 20 the action in its entirety without further leave to amend.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff failed to file a timely 21 amended complaint. 22 Instead, on April 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Uphold Order and Motion to 23 Associate Case.” See Dkt. No. 22. Over a week after the Court’s deadline to amend the 24 complaint, Plaintiff also filed a “Motion to Not Dismiss Case” on May 16, 2017. See Dkt. No. 23. 25 Even if the Court construes these motions — either separately or together — as an amended 26 complaint, they do not cure the deficiencies that the Court identified. Neither document clearly 27 identifies Plaintiff’s legal claims or even specifies the defendants against whom the claims are 28 alleged. Cf. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (concluding that a court 1 must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). While “a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent 2 3 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 4 (2007) (quotation omitted), the Court need not grant leave to amend where “it determines that the 5 pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts,” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 6 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff here has had an opportunity to amend her 7 complaint, and the Court is now convinced that she cannot allege facts to cure the defects 8 identified in the Court’s previous order. See Dkt. No. 21. The Court therefore dismisses the case 9 without leave to amend. See Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[W]here the Plaintiff has previously been granted leave to amend and has 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 subsequently failed to add the requisite particularity to its claims, [t]he district court’s discretion to 12 deny leave to amend is particularly broad.” (quotation omitted)). The clerk is directed to close the 13 case. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 5/18/2017 16 17 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 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?