Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00155/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00155-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment 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

DELIA MAPPE MOWREY, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DONALD H. RUMSFELD, )

)

)

)

Defendant. )

 

1:07cv0155 LJO DLB

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATION

(Document 13)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 

EXTENSION OF TIME

Plaintiff Delia Mappe Mowrey is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

employment discrimination action filed on January 29, 2007.

On February 21, 2007, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, explaining

that the complaint was deficient because it did not contain any facts to support or explain her

causes of action. The Court further explained that it could not rely on her exhibits to provide the

sole explanation of her alleged claims. Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended

complaint. 

On April 4, 2007, after Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint pursuant to the

February 21, 2007, order, the Court issued Findings and Recommendation that the action be

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to follow the Court’s order. 

On April 30, 2007, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff. In the correspondence,

which the Court construes as objections to the Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff explains

Case 1:07-cv-00155-LJO-DLB Document 15 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 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

2

that she does not understand how to proceed with this action and that she cannot afford an

attorney. 

Based on Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds it necessary to VACATE the April 4,

2007, Findings and Recommendation. The Court further GRANTS Plaintiff an additional thirty

days from the date of service of this order within which to file an amended complaint pursuant to

the Court’s February 21, 2007, order.

As explained in the order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend, Plaintiff did not

sufficiently explain her claims. As written, the Court could not determine exactly what her

claims were. In other words, Plaintiff’s complaint did not contain enough information to make

her legal claims clear, nor did it contain any facts from which her legal claims could be inferred. 

While a complaint in federal court need not set forth every element of a legal claim, it must

contain sufficient information so that the Court can be certain as to Plaintiff’s allegations. For

example, if Plaintiff believes that she was the victim of employment discrimination, she must

state this in her complaint and explain why she believes this to be true. If Plaintiff believes she

has been the victim of defamation and/or intentional infliction of emotional stress, she must set

forth the facts upon which she bases her beliefs. At the least, it must be clear to the Court how

and why Plaintiff believes she is entitled to relief. Plaintiff need not delve into legal argument or

analysis, but must explain, in simple terms, her allegations.

Therefore, Plaintiff IS ORDERED to file her amended complaint within thirty (30) days

of the date of service of this order. Plaintiff is advised that the Court cannot refer to a prior

pleading in order to make her amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v.

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged.

Case 1:07-cv-00155-LJO-DLB Document 15 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Plaintiff is further advised that failure to file an amended complaint consistent with this

order may result in dismissal of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 9, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00155-LJO-DLB Document 15 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 3