Filed: Mar. 30, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 30, 2017
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, Laura Bratset, is proceeding pro se in this action. Therefore, the matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). On December 12, 2016, the undersigned issued an order quashing service of process on defendants DJUSD and WJUSD, and dismissing plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff was granted twenty-eight days to file a second amended complaint. ( Id.
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, Laura Bratset, is proceeding pro se in this action. Therefore, the matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). On December 12, 2016, the undersigned issued an order quashing service of process on defendants DJUSD and WJUSD, and dismissing plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff was granted twenty-eight days to file a second amended complaint. ( Id. a..
More
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, Laura Bratset, is proceeding pro se in this action. Therefore, the matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On December 12, 2016, the undersigned issued an order quashing service of process on defendants DJUSD and WJUSD, and dismissing plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff was granted twenty-eight days to file a second amended complaint. (Id. at 14.)
On January 4, 2017, plaintiff filed a "RESPONSE TO ORDER FROM THE COURT [44]" in which plaintiff states that she does "understand the instruction from the court . . . that [she] will not be able to represent [her] son," who is a minor, "in this court." (ECF No. 45 at 2.) Plaintiff also "understand[s]" that she may "represent [herself] in this court," but that "[t]here is no reason to do so as the violations" are "against [her] son . . . and not [herself]."1 (Id.) Plaintiff's filing then "present[ed] to this court" a series of questions. (Id. at 2.)
On February 23, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 46.) That motion is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on April 7, 2017. On March 24, 2017, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motion. (ECF No. 47.)
Although plaintiff has failed to file a second amended complaint in the time provided, plaintiff's filings will be construed as a request for an extension of time to comply with the December 12, 2016 order. That request will be granted. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that further extensions of time will not be granted absent a showing of good cause. Although the court is cognizant of the difficulties faced by pro se litigants, all parties appearing before this court must abide by the Local Rules, the orders of this court, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' February 23, 2017 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 46) is denied without prejudice and the April 7, 2017 hearing is vacated;
2. Within twenty-eight days from the date of this order, a second amended complaint shall be filed that cures the defects noted in this order and complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice.2 The amended complaint must bear the case number assigned to this action and must be titled "Second Amended Complaint."3;
3. Plaintiff shall complete proper service on the defendants within twenty-eight days of the filing of any second amended complaint; and
4. Plaintiff is again cautioned that the failure to comply with this order in a timely manner may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
