Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07595/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-07595-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:18-cv-07595-KAW 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 8

On May 25, 2018, Plaintiff Archibald Cunningham filed this civil action and application to 

proceed in forma pauperis. Since Plaintiff was previously found to be vexatious, his complaint 

was subject to a prefiling order. While his complaint included some of the same parties and claims 

covered by the prefiling review order, the district court found that it also included parties and 

certain claims that were arguably outside its scope, so, on November 20, 2018, the court granted 

leave to proceed on the new complaint. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff also moved to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP Application”). (Dkt. No. 4.) On February 6, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's IFP 

Application. (Dkt. No. 8.) 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court then screened Plaintiff’s complaint and 

found it deficient, finding that Plaintiff had failed to set forth a “short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” (Compl., Dkt. 2; Screening Order, Dkt. No. 8 

at 3.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that provided the legal and factual 

basis for all claims by March 8, 2019. (Screening Order at 3.) The Court warned that the failure to 

do so would result in the case being reassigned to a district judge with the recommendation that 

the case be dismissed. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, by April 5, 2019, why the case 

Case 4:18-cv-07595-KAW Document 12 Filed 03/15/19 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

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and why he did not timely file the amended 

complaint. Additionally, Plaintiff shall file the first amended complaint. Failure to respond to the 

order to show cause and file the first amended complaint by the deadline will result in the Court 

reassigning the case to a district judge with the recommendation that the case be dismissed.

Again, Plaintiff may wish to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project's Help Desk for 

assistance—a free service for pro se litigants—by calling (415) 782-8982 to make an appointment. 

Plaintiff may also wish to consult the manual the court has adopted to assist pro se litigants in

presenting their case. This manual, and other free information for pro se litigants, is available 

online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cv-07595-KAW Document 12 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 2