Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03803/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03803-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

GEORGE PIERRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JENNY NIKLAUS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03803-WHO 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. No. 6

Currently before the Court is the Administrative Motion for Dismissal Because No 

Complaint Pending by defendants Jenny Niklaus and Teresa Schmitz. Dkt. No. 6. 

Plaintiff George Pierre filed this case in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa 

Clara. The complaint was dismissed by that court in its entirety with leave to file an amended 

complaint by September 3, 2013. The case was removed to this Court on August 16, 2013. Dkt. 

No. 1. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. On October 11, 2013, this Court issued an 

Order to Show Cause ordering plaintiff to file an amended complaint by November 4, 2013. Dkt. 

No. 7. The Court extended the deadline to file an amended complaint to November 20, 2013. 

Dkt. No. 8. On November 20, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to remand, which the Court denied on 

December 17, 2013. Dkt. Nos. 9, 11. As of today’s date, no amended complaint has been filed.

Under ordinary circumstances, the Court would dismiss this case at this time. But given 

that plaintiff is pro se and that he did file something by the deadline to file an amended complaint,

albeit not the document required by the Court, the Court will delay dismissing this case until 

January 17, 2014. If no amended complaint has been filed by that date, the Court will dismiss 

this action sua sponte. Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 

(9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil 

Case 3:13-cv-03803-WHO Document 12 Filed 01/02/14 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

procedure or the court’s orders).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2014

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-03803-WHO Document 12 Filed 01/02/14 Page 2 of 2