Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00380/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00380-1/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

IVETTE RIVERA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL DISTRICT, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 15-0380 SBA 

ORDER STRIKING ERRATA TO 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

On January 27, 2015, Plaintiff Ivette Rivera, acting pro se, filed the instant action 

against East Bay Municipal District (“EBMUD”) and its General Counsel, Maria Lourdes 

Matthews (“Matthews”). Dkt. 1. Plaintiff alleges that from 2005 until January 28, 2014, 

EBMUD and Matthews conspired to deprive her of her rights to be free from 

discrimination, equal pay, and freedom of association, among other rights. The action was 

assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu. 

On July 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint which joined a multitude 

of additional party-defendants, including the AFL-CIO, American Federation of State, 

County and Municipal Employees (“AFSCME”), AFSCME Local 443 and various other 

individuals ostensibly associated with EBMUD and the other entity-defendants. The 

parties declined to consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge which resulted in the 

reassignment of the action to this Court on July 28, 2015. Dkt. 26. 

On July 31, 2015, Plaintiff, without leave of court, filed two identical documents 

styled as “Notice of Errata to First Amended Complaint.” Dkt. 31, 32. The Notices of 

Errata purport to make twenty-seven changes to the First Amended Complaint. Some of 

the changes appear to be corrections to typographical errors. Other modifications, 

however, involve changing the identity of certain party-defendants. 

Case 4:15-cv-00380-SBA Document 35 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), a party may amend a pleading once 

“as a matter of course” within “(A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to 

which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 

21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” “In all 

other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent 

or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. 

15(a)(2). 

The Court finds that the Notices of Errata filed by Plaintiff on July 31, 2015, are 

improper. Plaintiff exhausted her right to amend as a matter of course upon filing her First 

Amended Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). To further amend the pleadings—as 

she ostensibly proposes to do through her Notices of Errata—Plaintiff must obtain either 

the consent of the opposing parties or prior leave of court (by filing a motion for leave to 

file an amended complaint). See id. 15(a)(2). There is nothing in the record to indicate 

that Plaintiff made any attempt to procure either the Defendants’ stipulation or the Court’s 

permission before filing the Notices of Errata. Moreover, to amend the allegations of the 

First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must file an entirely new amended complaint, and not 

merely an “errata” to the First Amended Complaint.1

 

Plaintiff is advised that although she is acting pro se (i.e., without an attorney) she 

nevertheless remains obligated to follow the same rules as represented parties. See Ghazali 

v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although we construe pleadings liberally in their 

favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.”) (per curiam); King v. Atiyeh, 

814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of 

procedure that govern other litigants.”). Self-representation is not an excuse for noncompliance with the court’s rules and orders. See Swimmer v. I.R.S., 811 F.2d 1343, 1344 

 1 A proposed stipulation or motion for leave to file an amended complaint must be 

accompanied by the proposed pleading. See Civ. L.R. 10-1 (“Any party filing or moving to 

file an amended pleading must reproduce the entire proposed pleading and may not 

incorporate any part of a prior pleading by reference.”). In addition, pursuant to this 

Court’s Standing Orders, Plaintiff must meet and confer in good faith with opposing 

counsel prior to submitting any request to the Court. 

Case 4:15-cv-00380-SBA Document 35 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

(9th Cir. 1987) (“[i]gnorance of court rules does not constitute excusable neglect, even if 

the litigant appears pro se.”) (citation omitted). Plaintiff’s failure to comply with any 

procedural requirements, including any Court order, may result in the imposition of 

sanctions up to and including dismissal of the action. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Notices of Errata, Dkt. 31 and 32, 

shall be STRICKEN from the record. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 8/5/15 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:15-cv-00380-SBA Document 35 Filed 08/05/15 Page 3 of 3