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).

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: http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. 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

[phone].

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