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)

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