Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05361/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05361-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
2 N.B.C.
Defendant
Charles Muhammad
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

2 NBC, et al.

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-05361 JSW

ORDER RE FILING OF

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

On September 1, 2006, this Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s application for a

temporary restraining order, denying without prejudice his application to proceed in forma

pauperis, and dismissing his complaint with leave to amend. That Order provided that “[i]f

Plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, he must file an amended complaint that sets forth the basis

of this Court’s jurisdiction and which also sets forth a cognizable legal claim.” (Order at 3.) 

The Court also directed Plaintiff to submit a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis.

The Court ordered that any amended complaint and in forma pauperis application be filed by

September 15, 2006. 

Instead of filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff apparently chose to appeal the Order. 

(See Docket No. 6.) As such, the Court took no further action pending resolution of the appeal. 

On December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute.

As set forth in the Court’s previous Order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend,

Courts must deny in forma pauperis applications under certain circumstances, including when 

Case 3:06-cv-05361-JSW Document 7 Filed 12/07/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the underlying complaint sought to be filed is frivolous or when it fails to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

In contravention of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), Plaintiff failed to file a

pleading setting forth the grounds upon which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over

these claims. Rule 8(a) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief, . . . and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Instead, the document that the Court construed as Plaintiff’s complaint,

entitled “Original Petition,” alleged, without factual support, that the Defendants violated the

First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Further,

as noted, although he set forth certain factual allegations in his application for a temporary

restraining order, those facts are disjointed and incoherent and do not make clear how

Defendants violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. 

Again, if Plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, he must file an amended complaint that

sets forth the basis of this Court’s jurisdiction and which also sets forth a cognizable legal

claim, as well as a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis by December 29, 2006. 

The Court HEREBY ADVISES the Plaintiff that failure to file a cognizable legal claim

by this date shall result in dismissal of this action with prejudice. The Court further advises

Plaintiff that a Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which contains helpful information about

proceeding without an attorney, is available through the Court’s website or in the Clerk’s office.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05361-JSW Document 7 Filed 12/07/06 Page 2 of 2