Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cendali v. Trex Enterprises Corp.

February 28, 2008

AMOS CENDALI JR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
TREX ENTERPRISES CORP, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge

ORDER ACCEPTING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT

On December 12, 2007, Plaintiff Amos Cendali, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), along with his complaint. On December 14, 2008, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP. In the same order, the Court conducted the mandatory screening required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies of his dismissed complaint. Specifically, the Court noted Plaintiff had included no statement of jurisdiction or factual allegations. In addition, Plaintiff made references to California state court proceedings but it was unclear what had taken place in the state court. The order specifically admonished Plaintiff as follows:

1. Plaintiff must explain why the Court has jurisdiction.

2. Plaintiff must state plainly what claims he is making against Defendant. Specifically, he must explain what Defendant did or failed to do, and why he is entitled to be awarded $1 million in damages as a result.

3. Plaintiff must explain what claims he brought in state court and how the state court dealt with those claims. He may do this by either providing a plain statement summarizing the case history (including any rulings dismissing claims, any ruling finally dismissing the case, and the current status of the case), or else by attaching a copy of his complaint and copies of all rulings made by the state court.

Plaintiff was permitted to amend his complaint no later than 30 days from the date the Court's order was entered. Plaintiff, however, took no further action until contacting the Clerk's office on February 14, 2008, at which time he now says he discovered the Court had already issued its order.

Plaintiff has now filed a motion to extend the 30-day time limit (the "Motion"), and has submitted his proposed amended complaint (the "FAC") along with his motion. The Motion explains the address Plaintiff provided to the Court was actually a mailing address and not his actual residential address. Plaintiff says he had repeatedly called family members who lived there, and was told nothing from the Court had arrived for him.

I. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint

Civil Local Rule 83.11(b) requires parties proceeding pro se to keep the Court informed of their current address. Plaintiff is cautioned that, in future, he should provide an address where he can reliably receive mail. While the reported explanation that the order did not arrive in the mail is open to question, the Court accepts the truth of it on this occasion. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion and accepts the FAC for filing.

Because Plaintiff is now on notice that one mailing sent to the address he provided to the Court either did not arrive or was not forwarded to him, he should take steps to make sure he receives all future mailings from the Court in a timely fashion, and is informed of developments in his case. Plaintiff is directed to contact the PACER Service Center at (800) 676-6856 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time, to arrange for access to the docket.

II. Mandatory Screening

Having accepted the FAC, the Court now performs the mandatory screening required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The pleadings are disordered, but the Court has construed them liberally. Haddock v. Board of Dental Examiners of Cal., 777 F.2d 462, 464 (9th Cir. 1985).

Because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, the Court is required to dismiss his complaint to the extent it fails to state a claim. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) ("[S]section 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.") The Court applies the same standard as for motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998).

In his original complaint filed in this Court, Plaintiff included no allegations of fact showing why he was entitled to relief. Instead, he provided citations to authority and attached various documents which he annotated with arrows, circles, etc., apparently expecting the Court would review these documents and create arguments for him. The Court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.