Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00322/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00322-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

Pursuant to the court’s February 9, 2005, judgment, which was affirmed by the 1

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as to dismissal of defendants Gold Coast Casino and The Berry

Creek Rancheria of Tyme Maidu Indians, the only remaining named defendant is Mattie

Mayhew. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all other named defendants and to

update the docket to reflect that defendant Mayhew is the lead defendants. 

While it appears that plaintiff was represented by counsel in the Ninth Circuit, no 2

attorney has appeared on his behalf in this court. If plaintiff has retained counsel to continue to

represent him in this action, a substitution of attorneys should be filed.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK S. ALLEN, No. CIV S-04-0322-LKK-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

MATTIE MAYHEW, et al., 1

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action for damages. On 2

February 9, 2005, this court entered judgment dismissing all of plaintiff’s claims as against all

defendants. Plaintiff appealed. On September 29, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

issued an opinion affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding for further proceedings. 

See Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2006). In particular, the Ninth

Circuit affirmed this court’s dismissal of defendants Gold Coast Casino and The Berry Creek

Case 2:04-cv-00322-LKK -CMK Document 38 Filed 06/04/07 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 Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint as of right on March 22, 2004. 3

2

Rancheria of Tyme Maidu Indians based on sovereign immunity. The Ninth Circuit, however,

vacated the portion of the court’s judgment dismissing all remaining defendants for failure to

state a claim and remanded to allow plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. The

Ninth Circuit held:

Although the issue is not free from doubt, we conclude that the district

court erred in its dismissal of the remainder of the complaint on the

ground that it presented no federal claims against Mayhew and the

unnamed defendants. Allen’s pro se pleadings are unquestionably

difficult to decipher, but they must be liberally construed. See Ortez v.

Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir. 1996). In his response to

the defendants’ motion to dismiss, Allen explained that he was asserting

against all defendants a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. He also accused

all defendants except Mayhew of violating 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Giving

Allen the benefit of the doubt, we conclude that he should be given the

opportunity to amend his complaint to assert these two claims intelligibly. 

We express no opinion, of course, on the procedural or substantive merits

of the claims beyond permitting Allen to assert them.

Id. at 1048.

In light of the Ninth Circuit’s remand, the court will now provide plaintiff an

opportunity to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff is warned that failure to file a second 3

amended complaint within the time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this

action. See Local Rule 11-110. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall file a second

amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order.

DATED: June 4, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00322-LKK -CMK Document 38 Filed 06/04/07 Page 2 of 2