MAHUWE v. PETSMART, CV12-0263-PHX-DGC. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20120427b58
Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 27, 2012
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge. Plaintiff has filed a document (Doc. 13) that appears to be his response to the Court's order requiring a more definite statement (Doc. 12). The document does not provide a more definite statement and does not comply with the Court's order of April 9, 2012 (Doc. 12). Plaintiff shall, on or before May 11, 2012 , file an amended complaint that complies with and addresses the issues set forth in sections II and III of the Court's order of April 9, 2012 (D
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge. Plaintiff has filed a document (Doc. 13) that appears to be his response to the Court's order requiring a more definite statement (Doc. 12). The document does not provide a more definite statement and does not comply with the Court's order of April 9, 2012 (Doc. 12). Plaintiff shall, on or before May 11, 2012 , file an amended complaint that complies with and addresses the issues set forth in sections II and III of the Court's order of April 9, 2012 (Do..
More
ORDER
DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Plaintiff has filed a document (Doc. 13) that appears to be his response to the Court's order requiring a more definite statement (Doc. 12). The document does not provide a more definite statement and does not comply with the Court's order of April 9, 2012 (Doc. 12). Plaintiff shall, on or before May 11, 2012, file an amended complaint that complies with and addresses the issues set forth in sections II and III of 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 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 is again warned that if he fails to comply with these requirements by May 11, 2012, the Court likely will dismiss this case for failure to comply with the Court's orders and for failure to prosecute.
Source: Leagle
