Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05418/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-05418-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

1

Case No. 16-CV-05418-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SIDNEY THEODORE SCARLETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-CV-05418-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

AMEND COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 9

On October 3, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis on the ground that Plaintiff’s complaint was legally and factually frivolous. ECF No. 9. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis operated as a “dismissal 

of the complaint.” Rodriguez v. Steck, 795 F.3d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2015). However, the Court’s 

October 3, 2016, order did not state whether the dismissal was with or without leave to amend.

The Court therefore grants Plaintiff leave to amend Plaintiff’s complaint. Although the 

complaint “has made no particular factual allegations against Defendants, and the legal arguments 

Plaintiff makes are entirely irrelevant,” ECF No. 9 at 2, it is not “absolutely clear that no 

amendment can cure the defect[s]” in the complaint. Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th 

Cir.1995) (per curiam). In these circumstances, Plaintiff is entitled to “an opportunity to amend 

Case 5:16-cv-05418-LHK Document 13 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 16-CV-05418-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

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

prior to dismissal of the action” with prejudice. Id.

Therefore, the Court orders that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint remedying the 

defects identified in the Court’s October 3, 2016 order within 21 days of this November 2, 2016 

order or face dismissal of this action with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-05418-LHK Document 13 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 2