Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00140/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00140-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Housing Discrimination

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANELLE RENEE SCOGGIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

TURNING POINT CENTRAL 

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00140-DAD-SAB

ORDER DISREGARDING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

(ECF No. 12)

On January 28, 2020, Danelle Renee Scoggin (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 27, 2020, 

Plaintiff’s complaint was screened and it was found not to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 

10.) Plaintiff was ordered to file a first amended complaint within thirty days. (Id.) The order 

was mailed to Plaintiff and was returned undeliverable on April 8, 2020. Plaintiff’s address was 

updated pursuant to the address that Plaintiff had included on her objections to a prior findings 

and recommendations and the order was re-served by mail. The re-served order was returned as 

undeliverable on April 27, 2020.

On May 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address and the order was re-served 

on this date. On June 11, 2020, a document entitled first amended complaint was filed. (ECF 

No. 12.) However, the document is not a complaint and is not signed by Plaintiff. The 

document states that on May 7, 2020, “I” was told that the documents were resent however the 

appropriate papers had not been received. The document requests that “I” be called and provides 

seven phone numbers, including one that is identified as “Grandmother”. The document is 

signed by Gloria Austin and the phone number is the number for the individual identified as 

Case 1:20-cv-00140-DAD-SAB Document 13 Filed 06/12/20 Page 1 of 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

2

“Grandmother”. 

A copy of the screening order was attached to the document and therefore it is apparent 

that the re-served document was received. Pursuant to the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

California, Plaintiff is required to keep the court updated with her current address. L.R. 182(f). 

The Court will not make phone calls to attempt to track down Plaintiff. Further, all documents 

filed in this matter must be signed by the person who is appearing in propria person (the 

plaintiff). L.R. 131(b).

The Court shall have the order re-served on Plaintiff based upon the inference that 

Plaintiff did not receive the document, but no further filings will be accepted in this action unless 

they are signed by Plaintiff or an attorney.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The first amended complaint filed June 11, 2020, is DISREGARDED;

2. The Office of the Clerk is DIRECTED to reserve the March 27, 2020 screening 

order (ECF No. 10) on the current address of record;

3. Plaintiff SHALL FILE a first amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the 

date of service of this order;

4. No further filings will be accepted from Plaintiff in this action unless they contain 

the signature of Plaintiff or her attorney should she obtain one; and

5. Failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order will result in 

the recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00140-DAD-SAB Document 13 Filed 06/12/20 Page 2 of 2