Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05948/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05948-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Breach of Contract

---

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

The FAC, in addition to including all of the allegations set forth in the initial

complaint, contains the following: (1) plaintiff’s allegation that she “has been suffering” due

to “brain implant stimulation” (see McBrien Decl. ¶ 1); (2) plaintiff’s allegation that an

unidentified court has made a finding “calling for [plaintiff’s] immediate death” (see id. ¶¶ 5,

6); and (3) a jury demand.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREN MCBRIEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-09-5948 MMC

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

By order filed December 29, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and afforded plaintiff leave to file a First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”) no later than January 19, 2010. Because plaintiff did not file an FAC by

said deadline, the Court, on January 22, 2010, dismissed the action without further leave to

amend and without prejudice to plaintiff’s pursuing her claims in the state court action

plaintiff had instituted; the Clerk entered a judgment of dismissal that same date.

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s FAC, filed June 9, 2010.1 Where, as here, a

judgment has been entered, a plaintiff may amend only with leave of court and only if the

judgment is “first reopened under a motion brought under Rule 59 or 60.” See Lindauer v.

Case 3:09-cv-05948-MMC Document 8 Filed 06/15/10 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

Rogers, 91 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir. 1996).

As stated above, a judgment was entered January 22, 2010. Plaintiff has not

sought, much less obtained, an order setting aside the judgment and allowing her to file an

FAC at this late date, nor does the record reflect any basis for such an order.

Accordingly, the FAC is hereby STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05948-MMC Document 8 Filed 06/15/10 Page 2 of 2