Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Sconiers v. California Dep't of Social Services

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 5, 2009

JANETTA SCONIERS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FOURTH-AMENDED COMPLAINT IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMITATION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

(Documents #70 & #73)

Pending before the court is pro se Plaintiff Janetta Sconiers's ("Plaintiff") January 23, 2009 application for leave to file a fourth-amended complaint in excess of the court's page limitation.*fn1

Plaintiff's application is denied as this court's December 16, 2008 order gave Plaintiff permission to file a fourth-amended complaint that complied with Rule 8 and prior court orders by January 9, 2009.*fn2 Plaintiff filed neither an amended complaint nor a request for additional time by January 9, 2009.

Moreover, on January 20, 2009, the court issued an order precluding Plaintiff from filing a fourth-amended complaint. Additionally, the court clarified that although the court's December 16, 2008 order admonished Plaintiff: "any violation of this order will result in dismissal with prejudice of this action for failure to obey a court order and to comply with Rule 8 and L.R. 11-110," it was the court's intent to caution Plaintiff that if she chose to file a fourth-amended complaint that did not comply with the court's order, then that violation would result in a dismissal of the fourth-amended complaint. Accordingly, the court did not intend to dismiss Plaintiff's entire action as the December 16, 2008 order solely dismissed Plaintiff's third-amended complaint.

As discussed in the court's January 20, 2009 order, the court is proceeding on the claims found to be sufficiently plead by Plaintiff in the second-amended complaint. The September 11, 2008 order found that Plaintiff's action could proceed on a §1983 cause of action and a negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action. Therefore, Plaintiff's second-amended complaint does not state any other cognizable claims. Accordingly, the court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to notify the court in writing if she wishes to proceed only on her §1983 cause of action and negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action against defendants found in the second-amended complaint.*fn3

To be clear, Plaintiff may not file any form of an amended complaint.

Lastly, as Plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order concerns causes of action that have been dismissed by the court, Plaintiff's application is denied as moot.

ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff's application for leave to file a fourth-amended complaint in excess of the court's page limitation is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff must notify the court by March 9, 2009 in writing that she wishes to proceed only on her §1983 cause of action and negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action against defendants found in the second-amended complaint;

3. Plaintiff's entire action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order; and

4. Plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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