Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01675/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01675-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Tulare
Defendant
County of Tulare
Defendant
Maria Guadalupe Rodelo
Plaintiff

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA GUADALUPE RODELO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF TULARE, a municipality; and 

DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01675-DAD-BAM

ORDER WARNING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT OR DEFENDANT 

CITY OF TULARE WILL BE DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 34)

On November 4, 2015, plaintiff Maria Guadalupe Rodelo filed her complaint in this action 

naming as defendants the City of Tulare, County of Tulare, and Does 1-10. (Doc. No. 1.)1 Only 

municipal liability claims were alleged by plaintiff against the defendant City of Tulare. (Id.) On 

February 11, 2016, the District Judge previously assigned to this action dismissed the municipal 

liability claims against the City of Tulare pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)1). 

(Doc. No. 29.) In that same order, the court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended within 

twenty-one days of the date of that order “if plaintiff can do so consonant with Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 11.” (Id.) On February 18, 2016, this action was reassigned to U.S. District 

Judge Dale A. Drozd for all further proceedings. (Doc. No. 30.) On March 3, 2016, pursuant to 

 

1

 Plaintiff is now proceeding pro se in this action. (Doc. No. 35.) 

Case 1:15-cv-01675-DAD-BAM Document 39 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 3
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 parties‟ stipulation, the court dismissed the County of Tulare from the action with prejudice. 

(Doc. No. 33.)

On March 4, 2016, counsel for the City of Tulare filed a proposed order dismissing all 

municipal liability claims against the City of Tulare with prejudice and entering judgment in 

favor of the City of Tulare due to plaintiff‟s failure to file an amended complaint in accordance 

with the court‟s February 11, 2016 order and the deadline for filing an amended complaint set 

forth therein. (Doc. No. 34.) 

On March 8, 2016, the court issued an order providing plaintiff a final opportunity to file 

an amended complaint. (Doc. No. 36, at 3.) Specifically, the court ordered that:

1) Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint with 

twenty-one days of the date of this order „if plaintiff can do so 

consonant with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11‟; and

2) Plaintiff is advised that if she does not comply with this 

deadline the dismissal of the municipal liability claims against 

the City of Tulare will be with prejudice and judgment will be 

entered in favor of defendant City of Tulare.

(Id. at 4.)

As of the date of this order, more than a month after the issuance of the court‟s March 8, 

2016 order, plaintiff has still not filed an amended complaint. However, on March 25, 2016, the 

assigned magistrate judge issued a minute order setting a scheduling conference in this action for 

April 26, 2016 at 9:00 AM and a deadline for the filing of a joint scheduling conference report a 

full week prior to the scheduling conference. (Doc. No. 38.) The minute order also noted that 

“[a]ll previously imposed dates are Vacated.” (Id.) Because that minute order arguably also 

vacated the prior deadline set in undersigned‟s March 8, 2016 order for the filing of an amended 

complaint, out of an abundance of caution the court will provide plaintiff with one final 

opportunity to file an amended complaint if she can do so consonant with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 11.2 

 

2

 Plaintiff is advised that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an amended 

complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended complaint be complete in itself 

without reference to prior pleadings. The amended complaint will supersede the original 

complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.1967). Thus, in an amended complaint, 

Case 1:15-cv-01675-DAD-BAM Document 39 Filed 04/11/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

However, the court once again explicitly warns that if plaintiff fails to file an amended 

complaint within the time provided by this order, her claims against defendant City of Tulare will 

be dismissed with prejudice and judgment will be entered in favor of defendant City of Tulare.

For the reasons set forth above:

1) Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint, if plaintiff can do so consonant 

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, that must be filed and served by a new 

deadline of 2:00 p.m. on April 25, 2016; and

2) Plaintiff is advised that if she does not file an amended complaint by the date and time 

deadline set by this order, the dismissal of the municipal liability claims against 

defendant City of Tulare will be with prejudice and judgment will be entered in favor 

of defendant City of Tulare.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

just as if it were the initial complaint filed in the case, each defendant must be listed in the caption 

and identified in the body of the complaint, and each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Any amended complaint which plaintiff may elect to file 

in this action must also include concise but complete factual allegations describing the conduct 

and events which underlie plaintiff's claims.

Case 1:15-cv-01675-DAD-BAM Document 39 Filed 04/11/16 Page 3 of 3