Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03017/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03017-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

ASSOCIATES OF FAITH and HARVEY

BLIGHT,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

SANTA CLARA, THOMAS ORVIS, STATE

BAR,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-05-3017 MMC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

In the above-titled action, plaintiffs seek to proceed in forma pauperis. In an order

filed July 29, 2005, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The Court

found plaintiffs had violated Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by failing to

adequately allege a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, and by failing to include a prayer for

relief. The Court further found that to the extent plaintiffs were seeking a writ of habeas

corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, they had failed to adequately allege they were in

custody in violation of the Constitution or law or treaties of the United States, or that they

had exhausted all remedies available to them in state court. Consequently, the Court

dismissed the action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and afforded plaintiffs leave to

file an amended complaint no later than August 26, 2005. 

Case 3:05-cv-03017-MMC Document 14 Filed 10/25/05 Page 1 of 2
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

1

 Although plaintiffs filed a document on August 5, 2005 requesting that two pages

be added to the original complaint, the additional pages did not address the deficiencies

identified by the Court in its July 29, 2005 order.

2

On August 18, 2005, rather than file an amended complaint, plaintiffs filed an appeal

with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.1

 On September 21, 2005, the Ninth Circuit

dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In an order filed the following day, September

22, 2005, the Court extended to October 14, 2005 the deadline for plaintiffs to file an

amended complaint. The Court further ordered that if plaintiffs failed to file an amended

complaint by that date, the Court would dismiss the action with prejudice. To date, plaintiffs

have not filed an amended complaint.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby DENIED and

the instant action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03017-MMC Document 14 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 2