Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00263/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00263-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Roger Mahuwe, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Petsmart, 

Defendant.

No. CV12-0263-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed a document (Doc. 15) that appears to be his response to the 

Court’s order requiring a more definite statement (Doc. 12) and its subsequent order 

requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that complies with the Court’s first order 

(Doc. 14). The document filed by Plaintiff is not an amended complaint as directed by 

the Court. The Court will give Plaintiff one additional opportunity to comply with the 

Court’s orders and file an amended complaint. If he does not, Plaintiff is warned that this 

case will be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

 The document filed by Plaintiff is titled “Reply in Support of More Definite 

Statement.” Doc. 15. That is not the document Plaintiff must file. Rather, Plaintiff must 

file an amended complaint (amending the document he first filed in this cases titled 

“Complaint”). The amended complaint must comply with the Court’s order of 

April 9, 2012 (Doc. 12). Specifically, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must include 

(1) numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph limited to a single allegation or issue, 

(2) state the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over this case, (3) set forth factual detail in 

Case 2:12-cv-00263-DGC Document 16 Filed 05/14/12 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 

support of his claim, such as the detail contained in the written statement attached to his 

original complaint, (4) set forth the legal basis for his claim (the statute or common law 

under which he is making a claim), and (5) identify the relief he seeks in this case. 

 Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by June 1, 2012. Plaintiff is again 

warned that if he fails to comply with this requirement, the Court will dismiss this case 

for failure to comply with the Court’s orders and for failure to prosecute. 

 Dated this 14th day of May, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00263-DGC Document 16 Filed 05/14/12 Page 2 of 2