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)

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 [phone].
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