Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00084/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00084-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Ricardo Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 9, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend within thirty 

(30) days. (ECF No. 25.) Having not received any amended complaint within that time, on September 

20, 2016, an order to show cause was entered, directing Plaintiff to show cause why this action should 

not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to obey a court order. 

(ECF No. 28.) After that order was issued, the Court received a first amended complaint, (ECF No. 

30), with a proof of service that indicates it was delivered to prison officials for mailing on September 

RICARDO MARTINEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. DAVEY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00084-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

(ECF No. 28)

ORDER STRIKING UNSIGNED FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT, (ECF No. 30),

AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE SIGNED 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 

Case 1:16-cv-00084-LJO-BAM Document 32 Filed 09/28/16 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

5, 2016, (Id. at 110). Because Plaintiff provided his first amended complaint to the prison officials for 

mailing within the thirty (30) days granted for leave to do so, the Court finds it appropriate to 

discharge the order to show cause. 

However, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint lacks any signature. Both the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules require that all filed pleadings, motions and papers be 

signed by at least one attorney of record or by the party personally if the party is unrepresented. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 11(a); Local Rule 131(b). Since Plaintiff’s complaint is unsigned, the Court must strike it

from the record. Plaintiff will be permitted thirty (30) days to file a signed complaint that complies 

with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules.

Finally, there were approximately 100 pages of exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s unsigned first 

amended complaint. The Court reminds Plaintiff that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a). Thus, in amending his complaint, Plaintiff must state sufficient facts showing what each 

defendant did or did not do that resulted in a violation of his rights. The Court is not required to sift 

through Plaintiff’s exhibits and attachments in an effort to determine what Plaintiff’s claim(s) are. If 

Plaintiff chooses to add attachments, he must identify them for the Court with specificity, and explain 

their significance.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Order to Show Cause issued on September 20, 2016 (ECF No. 28), is 

DISCHARGED;

2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed September 23, 2016 (ECF No. 30), is 

STRICKEN from the record for lack of signature;

3. The Clerk’s Office SHALL send to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL file a 

first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal; and

///

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-00084-LJO-BAM Document 32 Filed 09/28/16 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

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the 

Court will dismiss this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, 

and failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00084-LJO-BAM Document 32 Filed 09/28/16 Page 3 of 3