Bolton v. City of Berkeley et al

Filing 15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, ORDER denying 14 MOTION for Reconsideration re 12 Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel, filed by A. Bolton. Show Cause Response due by 9/11/2017. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 8/25/2017. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 A. BOLTON, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 CITY OF BERKELEY, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re: Dkt. Nos. 13 & 14 Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 4:17-cv-01387-KAW 12 13 On July 5, 2017, Plaintiff A. Bolton’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. (Dkt. 14 No. 10.) Plaintiff was given until August 4, 2017 to file an amended complaint. Id. at 2. Plaintiff 15 was advised that the failure to file an amended complaint could result in his case being dismissed 16 for failure to prosecute. Id. 17 On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel and requested that 18 the Court grant a 90 day extension to file the amended complaint, which was denied on August 4, 19 2017. (Dkt. Nos. 11 & 12.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff was given an additional two weeks, until 20 August 21, 2014, to file an amended complaint, which included his full name, and was advised 21 that the failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 22 12 at 2.) 23 24 25 On August 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, but again refused to use his full legal name. (Dkt. No. 13.) Also on August 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order 26 denying his motion to appoint counsel. (Dkt. No. 14.) Plaintiffs requested reconsideration for 27 “health, welfare, safety and privacy reasons.” (Dkt. No. 14 ¶ 2.) The Court again DENIES the 28 request. 1 Additionally, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why he is repeatedly 2 violating the Court’s order to furnish his legal first name. Plaintiff shall respond in writing no later 3 than September 11, 2017, and shall include his legal first name. The failure to timely and fully 4 respond to the order to show cause may result in the dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute. 5 The Court notes that Plaintiff has recently filed numerous lawsuits in federal court, and, to 6 the undersigned’s knowledge, refuses to fully identify himself in any of them. Anonymity is 7 permitted only “in special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice 8 to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Does I thru XXIII 9 v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). Generally, civil rights cases do not warrant anonymity. If Plaintiff has new facts or law that will meet the requirements for 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 anonymity, however, he may file a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration as 12 required by Civil Local Rule 7-9(a). Future motions for reconsideration filed without complying 13 with Civil Local Rule 7-9 will not be considered by the Court. 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff is again directed to obtain assistance from the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help Desk—a free service for pro se litigants—by calling (415) 782-8982. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 25, 2017 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate 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?