Lockwood, et al v. Otero, et al

Filing 59

ORDER re 58 Received Document filed by Andrea B. Lockwood striking Plaintiff's Proposed Complaint. Signed by Judge James Ware on January 16, 2009. (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Andrea Lockwood, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 00-20368 JW ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED COMPLAINT FROM THE DOCKET United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Juan Otero, et al., Defendants. / Presently before the Court is a document filed by Plaintiff, proceeding in pro se, entitled, "Proposed Complaint." (See Docket Item No. 58.) Plaintiff originally filed this case on April 4, 2000. (See Docket Item No. 1.) On November 20, 2000, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (See Docket Item No. 8.) On March 20, 2001, the Court granted various motions to dismiss each of Plaintiff's claims. (See Docket Item No. 50.) In dismissing Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, the Court granted partial leave to amend, limiting her future pleadings to her Americans with Disabilities Act claim. (Id.) Plaintiff filed two separate appeals of the Court's dismissal Order. (See Docket Item Nos. 52, 54.) The Ninth Circuit dismissed both of Plaintiff's appeals on May 22 and June 13, 2001, respectively, on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction because the orders challenged by Plaintiff were not final or appealable. (See Docket Item Nos. 55, 56.) Following her appeals, Plaintiff took no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 action until filing her Proposed Complaint on July 2, 2008. The Court construes Plaintiff's Proposed Complaint as an attempt to amend her 2000 Complaint pursuant to the Court's dismissal Order.1 When the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court specifically allowed Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended pleading to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Plaintiff failed to do so. Instead, Plaintiff elected to file her appeals. Although the Court did not specify a deadline for Plaintiff to file her amended complaint, the Court now finds that an eight year delay is untimely. Further, the Court finds that allowing Plaintiff to proceed on an amended complaint after such significant delay would substantially prejudice Defendants. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue any valid claims she may have, she must file a new law suit and properly serve Defendants. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff's Proposed Complaint stricken from the docket. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Dated: January 16, 2009 JAMES WARE United States District Judge It does not appear that Plaintiff has served the Proposed Complaint on any Defendants. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: George Paul Parisotto gparisotto@dir.ca.gov Maureen A. Folan mfolan@ndkylaw.com Andrea B. Lockwood 110 Santa Ana Road Hollister, CA 95023 Dated: January 16, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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?