Back v. American Red Cross et al

Filing 28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE to Plaintiff. Show Cause Response due by 11/3/2017. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 10/16/2017. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/16/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (sisS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FAYE BACK, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 4:17-cv-02225-KAW v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re: Dkt. No. 23 AMERICAN RED CROSS, et al., Defendants. 12 13 On September 13, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. 14 (Dkt. No. 23.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint no later than October 15 4, 2017. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff did, however, file a 16 case management statement on October 2, 2017. The case management conference was continued 17 to December 19, 2017, so the statement is not due until December 12, 2017. Id. 18 Currently, there is no operative complaint in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered 19 to file the first amended complaint on or before November 3, 2017 and respond to this ORDER 20 TO SHOW CAUSE to explain why she did not timely file the amended complaint and why this 21 case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The first amended complaint and the 22 response to the order to show cause shall be filed separately. Failure to timely respond to this 23 order to show cause and file the first amended complaint may result in this case being dismissed 24 for failure to prosecute. 25 In amending her complaint, Plaintiff may wish to consult a manual the court has adopted to 26 assist pro se litigants in presenting their case. This manual, and other free information for pro se 27 litigants, is available online at: Plaintiff may also wish to 28 contact the Federal Pro Bono Project's Help Desk—a free service for pro se litigants—by calling 1 (415) 782-8982. 2 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s initial complaint sought relief that cannot be awarded, 3 including a “pristine guard of nine [C]aucasians.” (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 6.) In amending her 4 complaint, Plaintiff is encouraged to connect the relief sought to the alleged damages she has 5 sustained, and the parties she is suing. The Court notes that the defendants appear to be unrelated, 6 so Plaintiff must clarify which causes of action she is alleging against each named defendant, as 7 well as the facts relating to each cause of action. 8 Plaintiff should be aware that the amended complaint will supersede or replace the original 9 complaint, and the original complaint will thereafter be treated as nonexistent. Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 878 n.40 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Johnson v. Cal., 543 U.S. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 499 (2005). The first amended complaint must, therefore, be complete, in itself, without reference 12 to the prior or superseded pleading, as “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint 13 which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 14 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 16, 2017 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 17 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?