Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01988/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01988-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yohonia Martin
Plaintiff
Redwood City Library
Defendant

Document Text:

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

YOHONIA MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

REDWOOD CITY LIBRARY,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01988-KAW 

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE; DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

Yohania Martin ("Plaintiff"), who proceeds pro se, commenced the above-captioned case 

on May 1, 2015. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. (Pl.'s IFP Appl., Dkt. No. 2.) She has consented to the undersigned's jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Pl.'s Consent, Dkt. No. 3.)

On May 14, 2015, the Court granted the application to proceed in forma pauperis and 

dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. (May 14, 2015 Order, Dkt. No. 5.) In the order, the 

Court instructed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to 

comply. On July 20, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Order to Show Cause, Dkt. No. 16.) Plaintiff was to file a 

written response to the order to show cause within 14 days. (Id. at 2.)

On July 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Answer Order For Case To Not Be 

Dismissed," Dkt. No. 17. The Court granted the motion and gave Plaintiff 30 days to file (1) a 

response to the order to show cause and (2) an amended complaint, which were to be filed as 

separate documents. (July 29, 2015 Order, Dkt. No. 18.) On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed both 

documents. Accordingly, the Court hereby DISCHARGES the order to show cause.

Plaintiff's amended complaint, however, does not remedy the deficiencies discussed in 

Case 4:15-cv-01988-KAW Document 24 Filed 10/02/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the Court's May 14, 2015 Order. For this reason, the amended complaint is DISMISSED WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within 30 days of this 

order. Plaintiff is reminded that the second amended complaint will supersede earlier versions of 

the complaint, such that they will be treated as nonexistent. See Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 

849, 878 n.40 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Johnson v. Cal., 543 U.S. 499 

(2005). For this reason, Plaintiff shall properly identify the legal and factual bases for all of her 

claims, free of any reference to any prior complaint. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th 

Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 

2012). The second amended complaint shall also contain allegations that establish this Court's 

jurisdiction over this action. Failure to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of this 

order may result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. This will be Plaintiff's final 

opportunity to amend the complaint to allege facts that establish this Court's jurisdiction and

state a plausible claim for relief.

To ensure that the second amended complaint complies with this order, Plaintiff may wish 

to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project's Help Desk—a free service for pro se litigants—by 

calling (415) 782-8982. The Court has also adopted a manual for use by pro se litigants, which 

may be helpful to Plaintiff. This manual, and other free information is available online at: 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants.

Additionally, because there is no operative complaint in this case, Plaintiff's "Motion of 

Submission of Affidavit of and for Plaintiff's Personal Financial Circumstance in Leitmotif," Dkt. 

No. 21, "Motion to Submit Additional Evidence and Subpoena," Dkt. No. 22, and "Motion to 

Submit Evidence," Dkt. No. 23, are TERMINATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/02/2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01988-KAW Document 24 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 2