Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-04336/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-04336-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

LAFAYETTE S JAMERSON, et al,

Plaintiffs,

v

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al,

Defendants.

 /

No C 01-4336 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiffs allege that the City and County of San

Francisco (“City”) discriminated against them and improperly

terminated plaintiff Elizabeth Jamerson’s limited commercial use

license. Doc #1; Doc #7 (First Amended Complaint). On February

27, 2006, the court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment

as to plaintiffs’ state law claims and denied the City’s motion as

to plaintiffs’ federal claims. Doc #42. 

Case 3:01-cv-04336-VRW Document 50 Filed 03/27/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On March 14, 2007, defendants submitted a status report

requesting an order to show cause why the action should not be

dismissed for (1) failure to conform to Civil Local Rule 3-9(a) and

(2) plaintiff Lafayette Jamerson’s lack of standing. Doc #47. 

Defendants requested that if the court does not issue an order to

show cause, the court should set a deadline for defendants to file

a dispositive motion on plaintiffs’ remaining federal claims.

That same day, plaintiff Lafayette Jamerson submitted a

“status report” and a proposed second amended complaint (SAC). Doc

#46. The proposed SAC appears to raise federal and state claims

stemming from proceedings in California Probate Court that occurred

after the filing of the first amended complaint. The SAC also

names Lafayette Jamerson as the sole plaintiff, apparently dropping

Elizabeth Jamerson and Alice Lane. This is plaintiff’s second

attempt to file a SAC – the court denied plaintiff’s first request

(see Doc #30) because plaintiff did not submit a copy of the

proposed amended complaint, in violation of Civil Local Rule 10-1. 

Plaintiff avoided that problem this time around by submitting a

copy of his proposed SAC, but his proposed pleading violates Rule

10-1 for a different reason. Plaintiff’s proposed SAC

“incorporate[s] by reference” the first amended complaint. Doc #46

at 2. Plaintiff believes such incorporation is permitted under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c), but Civil Local Rule 10-1

states that any proposed amended pleading “must reproduce the

entire proposed pleading and may not incorporate any part of a

prior pleading by reference.” On the other hand, plaintiff’s

proposed complaint is more likely a supplemental pleading under Fed

R Civ P 15(d) rather than an amended pleading under Rule 15(a), and

Case 3:01-cv-04336-VRW Document 50 Filed 03/27/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Local Rule 10-1 does not apply on its face to a supplemental

pleading.

Currently before the court is plaintiffs’ first amended

complaint, filed in April 2002. If plaintiffs wish to file a

supplemental pleading under FRCP 15(d) or an amended complaint

under FRCP 15(a)(2), then plaintiffs must make a motion requesting

permission to do so. Plaintiffs may not simply attach a proposed

pleading to a status report. Accordingly, the court disregards

plaintiffs’ proposed second amended complaint and focuses entirely

on plaintiffs’ first amended complaint.

The docket sheet shows that neither party has taken any

action in this case in the last twelve months. Accordingly,

plaintiffs are ordered to show cause in writing by April 10, 2008,

why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute the

first amended complaint. See Oliva v Sullivan, 958 F2d 272, 273-74

(9th Cir 1992) (holding that a district court has inherent

authority to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to

prosecute).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:01-cv-04336-VRW Document 50 Filed 03/27/08 Page 3 of 3