Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01254/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01254-0/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

- 1 - 09cv1254

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA STICKLER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09-CV-1254-IEG (CAB)

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING AS MOOT

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. No. 16); and

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF

LEAVE TO AMEND PURSUANT

TO THE COURT’S JULY 28, 2009

ORDER.

vs.

MARRIOTT,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Pamela Stickler’s Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis, received by the Court on December 11, 2009 and filed nunc pro tunc on December 14,

2009. (Doc. No. 16.)

DISCUSSION

On June 9, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Marriot, apparently alleging her civil rights

were violated. (Doc. No. 1.) On June 19, 2009, the Court dismissed the action for failure to pay the

statutorily-required filing fee. (Doc. No. 5.) 

Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. No. 6.) In the

Court’s July 28, 2009 Order, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion, but sua sponte dismissed the

complaint without prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B). (Doc. No. 10.) The Court granted Plaintiff thirty (30) days from the date the Order

Case 3:09-cv-01254-IEG-CAB Document 17 Filed 12/17/09 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

1

On two other occasions the Court unsuccessfully attempted to mail to Plaintiff five separate

discrepancy orders filed in this case, in which the Court rejected documents for failure to comply with

the Local Rules. (Doc. No. 12, 13, 14.)

- 2 - 09cv1254

was filed to file a First Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies of the pleading set forth in

the Order. The Court mailed the July 29, 2009 Order to Plaintiff at the address listed with the Court -

“General Delivery, Chula Vista, CA 91910-9999” - but the mail was returned as undeliverable.1

 (Doc.

No. 14.) 

On December 11, 2009, the Court received the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis presently

before the Court and ordered it to be filed nunc pro tunc. (Doc. No. 16.) Plaintiff’s motion lists her

new address as: 4101 30th St. #B, San Diego, CA 92104. 

CONCLUSION

Because the Court granted Plaintiff’s previous motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the July

28, 2009 Order, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the motion to proceed in forma pauperis presently

before the Court.

Additionally, because it appears that Plaintiff may not have received the July 28, 2009 Order

sua sponte dismissing the case with leave to amend, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff an additional thirty

(30) days from the filing date of this Order to file a First Amended Complaint addressing the

deficiencies of the pleading set forth in the July 28, 2009 Order. Plaintiff is cautioned that her First

Amended Complaint must be complete in itself, without relying on references to the Original

Complaint. Plaintiff is further cautioned that any defendant not named or claim not re-alleged will be

considered waived. See King v. Attiyeh, 814 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996).

The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order and the July 28, 2009 Order to Plaintiff’s new

address at 4101 30th St. #B, San Diego, CA 92104. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 17, 2009

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:09-cv-01254-IEG-CAB Document 17 Filed 12/17/09 Page 2 of 2