Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00375/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00375-7/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAYMOND M. DOUGLAS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 

Defendants. 

RAYMOND M. DOUGLAS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al. 

 Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0415 MCE AC (PS) 

ORDER 

No. 2:16-cv-0375 MCE AC (PS) 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in these actions pro se. The actions were referred to the 

undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). The actions were related to each other on 

April 29, 2016. 

I. SERVICE 

 Both actions were set for an initial status conference on December 14, 2016. No 

defendant has made an appearance, and there is no indication that any defendant has yet been 

Case 2:16-cv-00375-MCE-AC Document 27 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 3
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

served with process. However, plaintiff has filed the required documents showing that he has 

provided the U.S. Marshal with the materials needed to effect service in both cases. The court 

will therefore continue the joint status conference for 90 days, to give the U.S. Marshal sufficient 

time to serve process, and for defendants to respond and to prepare for the conference. 

II. OPERATIVE COMPLAINT 

 On August 23, 2016, plaintiff filed Third Amended Complaints in both cases. See 

Douglas v. City of Sacramento, 2:16-cv-0375, ECF No. 19; Douglas v. County of Sacramento, 

2:16-cv-0415, ECF No. 17. These amended complaints will be stricken from the docket, because: 

(1) in neither case did plaintiff obtain the required leave to file an amended complaint, see Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15(a)(2); and (2) in both cases, the amended complaints assert federal claims against 

municipal defendants, even though those claims were previously dismissed from the cases with 

prejudice, and the municipal defendants were dismissed without prejudice to renewal of the state 

claims against them in an appropriate state forum. 

 Accordingly, the operative complaint in each case is the “Second Amended Complaint,” 

filed on May 25, 2016 in both cases. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The December 14, 2016 joint Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is CONTINUED to 

March 15, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., before the undersigned. The instructions set forth in the 

scheduling conference order in 16-cv-0375, ECF No. 24 ¶¶ 4-6, apply to both cases. 

2. The parties are cautioned that failure to timely file status reports or to otherwise comply 

with the above-referenced scheduling conference order may result in sanctions, including 

a recommendation for dismissal or judgment. 

3. The Third Amended Complaint in Douglas v. City of Sacramento, 2:16-cv-0375 (ECF 

No. 19), is ordered STRICKEN from the docket; 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:16-cv-00375-MCE-AC Document 27 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 3
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 

3

4. The Third Amended Complaint in Douglas v. County of Sacramento, 2:16-cv-0415 (ECF 

 No. 17), is ordered STRICKEN from the docket. 

DATED: December 9, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-00375-MCE-AC Document 27 Filed 12/09/16 Page 3 of 3