WILLIAMS v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, CV 14-7625 JVS(JC). (2016)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20160524669
Visitors: 14
Filed: May 20, 2016
Latest Update: May 20, 2016
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JAMES V. SELNA , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the operative First Amended Complaint, all documents submitted in connection with (1) the Motion to Dismiss ("Joint Motion") filed by the County of Los Angeles and defendants Philip L. Browning, Jon Minato, and Dennis Veals ("Joint Defendants") and the accompanying Request for Judicial Notice; (2) the Motion to Dis
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JAMES V. SELNA , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the operative First Amended Complaint, all documents submitted in connection with (1) the Motion to Dismiss ("Joint Motion") filed by the County of Los Angeles and defendants Philip L. Browning, Jon Minato, and Dennis Veals ("Joint Defendants") and the accompanying Request for Judicial Notice; (2) the Motion to Dism..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JAMES V. SELNA, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the operative First Amended Complaint, all documents submitted in connection with (1) the Motion to Dismiss ("Joint Motion") filed by the County of Los Angeles and defendants Philip L. Browning, Jon Minato, and Dennis Veals ("Joint Defendants") and the accompanying Request for Judicial Notice; (2) the Motion to Dismiss ("Luque Motion") filed by defendant Lupe Luque ("Luque"); and (3) Plaintiff's Application for Entry of Default ("Plaintiff's Application"), and all of the records herein, including the attached Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Report and Recommendation"). The Court approves and accepts the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: (1) the Request for Judicial Notice is denied as moot; (2) the Joint Motion is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice and the First Amended Complaint is dismissed as against the Joint Defendants based upon plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (3) the Luque Motion is granted and defendant Luque is dismissed from this action without prejudice due to insufficient service of process; (4) Plaintiff's Application is denied; (5) Plaintiff is granted limited leave (see infra note 1) to file a Second Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order;1 (6) Plaintiff is cautioned that, absent further order of the Court, her failure timely to file a Second Amended Complaint which complies with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action with or without prejudice based on, among other things, the reasons noted above as more fully explained in the Report and Recommendation, her failure diligently to prosecute, and/or her failure to comply with the Court's Orders; and (7) the Clerk shall provide plaintiff with a Central District of California Civil Rights Complaint Form to facilitate plaintiff's filing of a Second Amended Complaint if she elects to proceed in that fashion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Report and Recommendation on plaintiff and counsel for defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Any Second Amended Complaint must: (a) be labeled: "Second Amended Complaint;" (b) be complete in and of itself and not refer in any manner to the Original Complaint or the First Amended Complaint — i.e., it must include all claims on which plaintiff seeks to proceed; (c) contain a "short and plain" statement of the claims for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); (d) make each allegation "simple, concise and direct" Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1); (e) make allegations in numbered paragraphs, "each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances" Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b); (f) simply, concisely, and clearly set forth the specific sequence of events (including specific relevant dates) which allegedly gives rise to the claim(s) for relief, including what each defendant did and how each specific defendant's conduct injured plaintiff; and (g) not add defendants or claims without leave of court. Cf. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (prisoners may not file "buckshot" complaints — i.e., a pleading that alleges unrelated violations against different defendants). In order adequately to comply with the foregoing, plaintiff must provide a short, plain statement for each claim/alleged constitutional violation which, at a minimum, includes (1) the specific constitutional right plaintiff claims was violated; (2) the name of each defendant who allegedly violated the specific constitutional right; (3) for each such defendant, a simple, concise, and clear description of what he or she specifically did or failed to do which caused a violation of the specific constitutional right; and (4) the specific injury plaintiff suffered because of the alleged misconduct of each individual defendant identified.
Source: Leagle
