Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00877/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00877-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAJAI CALIP,

Plaintiff,

v.

OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00877-SI 

ORDER RE DEADLINE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT TO AVOID 

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Re: Dkt. 10

Plaintiff filed this case on February 26, 2015. In an order filed March 3, 2015, Magistrate 

Judge Westmore denied without prejudice plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis ("IFP") because plaintiff had not fully answered question numbers 1 and 7 (last date of 

employment and current bank account balance). The Court's March 3, 2015 order directed 

plaintiff to file another IFP application with complete information. 

The same order also dismissed the complaint, noting that although plaintiff alleged that she 

had been terminated on the basis of her gender, the complaint did not provide any details of the 

events that led to her termination. The Court also noted that plaintiff’s termination occurred on 

January 20, 2010, which was more than four years prior to the filing of this action, and is, 

therefore, likely barred by the statute of limitations. Finally, the Court noted that plaintiff did not 

allege that she exhausted her administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit. The Court

dismissed the complaint and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by March 31, 

2015.

On March 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a document declining to proceed before a Magistrate 

Judge, and consequently this case was reassigned to the undersigned judge. On March 17, 2015, 

plaintiff filed a second IFP application, but that application still did not contain a complete answer 

Case 3:15-cv-00877-SI Document 13 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to question number 1. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint.

Several pieces of mail addressed to plaintiff at "P.O. Box 892, Oakland, CA 94605," have 

been returned to the court as undeliverable. Dkt. 11, 12. Plaintiff's complaint listed her address as 

"P.O. Box $892, Oakland, CA 94605." Dkt. 1. It is unclear to the Court whether the correct 

address is P.O. Box 892 or perhaps P.O. Box 4892. It is also unclear whether plaintiff intends to 

prosecute this case as plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows. If plaintiff wishes to prosecute this case, she 

shall file an amended complaint and a complete IFP application (or pay the filing fee) no 

later than April 17, 2015. If plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this case without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

The second IFP application, which is incomplete, is DENIED without prejudice. Dkt. 10. 

The Clerk shall mail copies of this order and the March 3, 2015 order to plaintiff at both 

possible addresses:

P.O. Box 892, Oakland, CA 94605 

P.O. Box 4892 Oakland, CA 94605

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2015 ________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00877-SI Document 13 Filed 04/02/15 Page 2 of 2