Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03898/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03898-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALINKA TACUMA WADE MOYE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BIG NATES BARBEQUE,

Defendant. /

No. C-09-03898 EDL

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

On October 22, 2009, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis

application, and dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. The Court ordered Plaintiff

to file an amended complaint no later than November 6, 2009, and stated that failure to file an

amended complaint by that date would result in dismissal with prejudice of this action. The October

22, 2009 Order was served by mail on Plaintiff’s address of record. Plaintiff did not file an amended

complaint or any other document by November 6, 2009. On November 9, 2009, the mail containing

the Court’s October 22, 2009 Order was returned as undeliverable. See Docket Number 9. 

On December 16, 2009, because the Court’s previous Order had been returned as

undeliverable, the Court issued an Order giving Plaintiff one last opportunity to file an amended

complaint that complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Civil Local

Rules. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file a statement explaining how his November 10, 18 and

25, 2009 filings related to this case and what specific relief Plaintiff sought through those filings. 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint and explanatory statement were due to be filed no later than January

11, 2010. 

On December 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in response to the Court’s

December 16, 2009 Order. The amended complaint does not comply with the Court’s October 22

Case 3:09-cv-03898-EDL Document 18 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Order or with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Civil Local Rules. The basis for

the Court’s jurisdiction remains unclear. Plaintiff appears to allege that there is federal question

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968, but the amended complaint does not

contain any factual allegations to support a claim under RICO. In fact, the amended complaint is

completely devoid of any factual allegations to support a claim for violation of any state or federal

law against Defendant. In sum, as described in the Court’s October 22, 2009 Order, the amended

complaint fails to include a “short and plan statement of the claim that the pleader is entitled to

relief” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Because Plaintiff has twice failed to

file an amended complaint that meets the applicable legal requirements, this action is dismissed with

prejudice. Further, to the extent that Plaintiff’s November 10, 18 and 25, 2009 filings sought any

relief from the Court, that relief is denied as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2010 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03898-EDL Document 18 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 2