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.

Kulvinder S. Boparai v. Eric K. Shinseki

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 12, 2013

KULVINDER S. BOPARAI,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR GUIDANCE AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE THE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLIANT ON OR BEFORE APRIL 30, 2013 (Doc. 20)

Kulvinder S. Boparai ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se in this action for violations of Title VII. On February 22, 2013, the Court recommended Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 15). On March 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations, asserting new facts in support of his claims. (Doc. 16). Accordingly, the Court withdrew its Findings and Recommendations, and granted Plaintiff leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint to incorporate the facts asserted for the first time in his objections. (Doc. 19).

On April 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a response to the Court's order, and requested "guidance from Court as to what was still deficient." (Doc. 20). Plaintiff contends, "The Court did not give [him] direction as to which deficiencies were cured." Id. at 2. However, the Court noted Plaintiff had alleged new facts, and clarified facts from his Third Amended Complaint. Because a pleading must be "complete within itself," the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to incorporate these new facts. See Local Rule 220. The Court cannot, and will not, review the two documents together to 2 determine whether Plaintiff has stated sufficient facts or to identify cognizable claims. 3

Again, Plaintiff is cautioned this is his final opportunity to file an complaint that states

4 sufficient facts to support his claims. The document must bear the docket number assigned this case 5 and must be labeled "Fourth Amended Complaint." Plaintiff's "[f]actual allegations must be 6

[sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . ." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 7

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). If Plaintiff does not state facts in his Fourth Amended Complaint that 8 support his claims, the Court will presume he is unable to do so. The Fourth Amended Complaint must 9 be "complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading." Local Rule 220.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's motion for guidance from the Court (Doc. 20) is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff SHALL file a Fourth Amended Complaint on or before April 30, 2013; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the action will be dismissed for his failure to obey a Court order pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130412

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



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.