Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01359/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01359-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:791 Job Discrimination (Rehabilitation 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TANYA PRSHEWLOZKY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1359 LKK DAD PS

vs.

JOHN E. POTTER, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

This action was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of California after the Northern District court determined that plaintiff alleges disability

discrimination and retaliatory treatment while employed at two Postal Service facilities in

Sacramento County. After the transfer was effected, plaintiff submitted a first amended

complaint captioned for filing in this case and a related case, also transferred from the Northern

District of California. See CIV S-07-1044 FCD JFM PS. The related case has been dismissed at

plaintiff’s request. By order filed October 19, 2007, the first amended complaint in this case was

dismissed because it does not contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the

court’s jurisdiction depends, does not contain a short and plain statement of claim showing that

plaintiff is entitled to relief in federal court, and contains an incomprehensible prayer for relief. 

Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file a second amended complaint.

Case 2:07-cv-01359-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 12/14/07 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

 On November 13, 2007, plaintiff filed a document confirming that her November 8, 1

2007 filing is not a second amended complaint. She takes issue with the Clerk’s docket entry for

the November 8, 2007 filing, although the docket entry accurately reflects the title of the

document as filed.

2

On November 8, 2007, plaintiff filed a document titled “Second Amended

Complaint and Motion to Transfer.” The document is not a second amended complaint and

cannot be construed as such because it does not satisfy any of the pleading requirements

described in the court’s October 19, 2007 order. Plaintiff requests that this case be transferred

back to the Northern District “in order to comply with Postal manager’s order dated November

20, 2006, and to properly request Dr. Brodsky’s say [sic] within 50 miles.” (Document #12, filed

Nov. 8, 2007, at 2.)

Plaintiff is informed that the proper venue for a federal case is determined by

federal statute, not by postal managers and doctors. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Plaintiff’s motion to

transfer includes exhibits that support the Northern District’s decision to transfer this case to the

Eastern District. Plaintiff’s request to transfer the case back to the Northern District lacks merit

and must be denied.

As plaintiff has admitted, her November 8, 2007 filing is not a second amended

complaint. The order filed October 19, 2007 granted plaintiff thirty days to file a second 1

amended complaint and cautioned plaintiff that failure to file a second amended complaint that

complies with the order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirtyday period has expired, and plaintiff has not complied with the order. The undersigned will

therefore recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to amend, failure to comply with a

court order, and failure to file any pleading that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; Local Rule 11-110. In the interests of justice, the undersigned

will recommend that the action be dismissed without prejudice.

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01359-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 12/14/07 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

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 8, 2007 motion to transfer

is denied; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for

failure to file a second amended complaint, failure to comply with a court order, and failure to

file any pleading that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

ten days after these findings and recommendations are served by the Clerk of the Court, plaintiff

may file written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the

right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 13, 2007.

DAD:kw

Ddad1\orders.prose\prshewlozky1359.ordf&r.fta

Case 2:07-cv-01359-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 12/14/07 Page 3 of 3