Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00738/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-00738-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA STUART ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-00738-PJH 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 5, 13, 15

On April 15, 2019, the previously assigned judge, Magistrate Judge Donna M. 

Ryu, dismissed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Dkt. 11 (the “April 

Order”). The April Order required plaintiff to file an amended complaint by April 30, 2019. 

Id. at 6. 

On May 6, 2019, having received no amended complaint, Judge Ryu ordered the 

action reassigned to a district judge for final disposition and recommended that the 

newly-assigned district judge dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

Dkt. 13 (the “R&R”). That same day, the action was assigned to this court. Dkt. 14. 

After Judge Ryu issued her R&R, but still on May 6, 2019, plaintiff filed a “Motion 

to Consider Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,” Dkt. 15, and an amended complaint, Dkt. 16. 

Plaintiff’s motion explains that she did not receive the April Order in time to file an 

amended complaint because she had recently changed her mailing address. Dkt. 15. 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is nearly identical to the complaint Judge Ryu dismissed 

pursuant to § 1915(e). Compare Dkt. 1 with Dkt. 16. Moreover, unlike plaintiff’s original 

complaint which attached a declaration containing all of plaintiff’s factual allegations, 

plaintiff’s amended complaint attached no such declaration and is thus largely devoid of 

Case 4:19-cv-00738-PJH Document 17 Filed 05/23/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

allegations related to the complained of conduct. 

In light of the above, the court hereby ORDERS as follows:

(1) The court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for consideration of the 

amended complaint.

(2) The court DECLINES to adopt Judge Ryu’s R&R.

(3) The court DISMISSES plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 

§ 1915(e) for the same reasons stated in the April Order and 

because the amended complaint contains no factual allegations.

(4) If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, she shall file a second

amended complaint no later than June 14, 2019. The second 

amended complaint, if any, must address the deficiencies identified 

in the April Order and must contain factual allegations. That is, the 

second amended complaint may not attempt to incorporate any of 

plaintiff’s prior complaints or her previously filed declaration. Plaintiff 

is forewarned that if she fails to file a timely second amended 

complaint, the court will dismiss her action.

(5) Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing, see Dkt. 

5, is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2019

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-00738-PJH Document 17 Filed 05/23/19 Page 2 of 2