United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER RE: STATEMENT FILED BY PLAINTIFFS AND
APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS RE: DKT. NOS. 18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23
M. Ryu United States Magistrate Judge
23, 2016, the court issued an order granting Plaintiffs John
Quach, Tug Tin Mathesius, Max Mathesius, Jacqueline Cao, and
minor S. C.'s (collectively "Plaintiffs")
applications to proceed in forma
pauperis. [Docket No. 17.] The court also reviewed
the Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2) and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend by
July 7, 2016. Id.
5, 2016, Plaintiff Max Mathesius filed a document entitled
"Statement: Testimony, " a document entitled
"Amended Statement, " and what appears to be a form
from the Marin County Sheriff's Office for
Evidence/Property Record. [Docket No. 23.] To the extent that
Max Mathesius intended to file an amended complaint, these
documents are insufficient to do so. The "Statement:
Testimony" is riddled with hypothetical questions such
as "The one who tipped? Uncertain from the extent of my
knowledge. A question to be raised at the stand?" and
"What kind of drug dealer would be on food stamps
anyway? Think about it? If you were a dealer would you be on
food stamps?" [Docket No. 23 at 1.]
8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that
"[a] pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . .
shall contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Max Mathesius's July 5, 2016 documents
fail to do so. Further, the court cannot determine whether
the Mathesius is solely acting on his own behalf or whether
the document was filed on behalf of the other Plaintiffs. It
is not clear from the documents what claims for relief
Plaintiff(s) seek to allege and which Defendant(s) each claim
is alleged against.
court reminds Plaintiffs that it does not refer to a prior
pleading in order to make plaintiffs' amended complaint
complete. This is because, as a general rule, an amended
complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey v.
Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en
banc). Plaintiffs' original complaint has been dismissed
in its entirety. [Docket No. 17.] Therefore, if Plaintiffs
wish to file an amended complaint each claim and the
involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
Anderson v. Sacramento Police Dep't, No.
216CV0527TLNGGHPS, 2016 WL 3091162, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 2,
court refers Plaintiffs to the section "Representing
Yourself" on the Court's website, located at
http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants, as well as
the Court's Legal Help Centers for unrepresented parties.
In San Francisco, the Legal Help Center is located on the
15th Floor, Room 2796, of the United States Courthouse, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. In Oakland, the Legal Help
Center is located on the 4th Floor, Room 470S, of the United
States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland.
court extends the Plaintiffs' deadline to file an amended
complaint to address the deficiencies noted in the June 23,
2016 Order from July 7, 2016 to July 20, 2016. Failure to
file a timely amended complaint may result in a dismissal
without prejudice for failure to prosecute the case.
 Because the court has already granted
the Plaintiffs' application to proceed in forma
pauperis, the court will not consider the new
applications to proceed in forma pauperis filed by
Plaintiffs on July 5, 2016. [Docket Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21,
 Plaintiffs have filed consent to
magistrate judge jurisdiction. [Docket Nos. 12-15.] A
magistrate judge generally must obtain the consent of the
parties to enter dispositive rulings and judgments in a civil
case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). However, in
cases such as this one, where the Plaintiffs have consented
[Docket Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15] but not served the defendants,
"all parties have consented pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c)(1), " and a magistrate judge therefore
"‘may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or
nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the
case.'" Gaddy v. McDonald, No. CV 11-08271
SS, 2011 WL 5515505, at *1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011)
(quoting § 636(c)(1)) (citing United States v. Real
Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995));
Third World Media, LLC v. Doe, No. C 10-04470 LB,
2011 WL 4344160, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2011)); see
also Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, ...