Scruggs v. T.N.D.C. Housing et al

Filing 7

Order by Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 6 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.(pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2016)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

LEMOND SCRUGGS,

6
7
8

Case No. 16-cv-06470-PJH

Plaintiff,

5
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

T.N.D.C. HOUSING, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 6

Defendants.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Before the court is pro se plaintiff Lemond Scruggs’ motion to amend his

12

complaint. Dkt. 6. On November 11, 2016, the court dismissed plaintiff’s prior complaint,

13

and provided that any amended complaint must be filed with the court by December 12.

14

It is not clear whether plaintiff’s motion is meant to constitute his amended

15

complaint, or is instead a request for permission to amend his complaint. To the extent

16

that the filing is a request for leave to amend, the court DENIES the motion as moot. The

17

court’s earlier order has already provided plaintiff permission to amend his complaint. If

18

plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, he need only file with the court a document with

19

the title “Amended Complaint” in the caption. The December 12 deadline set by the

20

court’s prior order, however, remains intact.

21

To the extent that the motion itself is intended to be the amended complaint,

22

plaintiff’s new filing has not remedied the deficiencies that the court described in its prior

23

order. Plaintiff still has not explained the specific legal basis for his claims or how any of

24

the injuries he suffered constitute a violation of federal law. Although plaintiff makes

25

several new allegations about the condition of the premises of the Ambassador Hotel

26

(“inadequate security,” “missing or defective carbon monoxide detectors,” “windows not

27

working,” etc.), he does not explain why these conditions represent racial discrimination

28

or a failure to accommodate his (unspecified) disability.

1

Instead, plaintiff’s amended complaint repeats, nearly verbatim, his allegations that

2

defendant failed to stop repeated burglaries that occurred while he was a resident at the

3

Ambassador Hotel. Plaintiff still does not explain how defendant’s actions or his

4

subsequent eviction were motivated by race or disability. Finally, to the extent that

5

plaintiff still seeks to make a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he has not explained why

6

defendant is a state actor subject to this statute.

7

The motion to amend the complaint is therefore DENIED. To prevent dismissal of

8

this case, plaintiff must file an amended complaint by December 12 that explains the

9

specific legal basis for his claims and the specific factual allegations that support his

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 1, 2016

13
14
15

__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

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