ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, DISREGARDING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND CONTINUING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE TO DECEMBER 9, 2019

(ECF Nos. 11, 12)

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

Priscilla Maldonado ("Plaintiff") filed this action on April 26, 2019 alleging medical malpractice against United Health Centers of the San Joaquin Valley. (ECF No. 1.) On May 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint adding Herman Leung as a defendant in the action. (ECF No. 2.)

An order issued in this action on August 19, 2019, requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to serve the summons and complaint in compliance with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff filed a response and proof of service on August 20, 2019. (ECF No. 9.) On September 5, 2019, the order to show cause was discharged and Plaintiff was ordered to file a notice of the status of this action or request for entry of default within five days as no responsive pleading had been filed. (ECF No. 10.)

Plaintiff did not comply with the September 5, 2019, order and an order was filed on September 12, 2019, requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 11.) On this same date Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint and response to the order to show cause. (ECF No. 12.) Based on Plaintiff's response, the order to show cause shall be discharged.

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Here, Plaintiff has already filed an amended complaint; and therefore, is required to either file a motion for leave to amend or a stipulation to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff's second amended complaint shall be disregarded.

Plaintiff contends that this matter is now ready to proceed, however, as explained in the email attached to the order to show cause, service on the United States must comply with Rule 4(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which requires serving a copy of not only the complaint, but also the summons. Since neither the original or amended complaint named the United States as a party in this action so no such summons has issued.

Currently, a scheduling conference is scheduled in this matter for September 23, 2019. As there has been no responsive pleading filed and it appears that Plaintiff intends to file an amended complaint, the scheduling conference shall be continued to December 9, 2019.

Finally, it appears to the Court that counsel for Plaintiff is not reading the orders that have been issued in this matter. Counsel is expected to familiarize himself with both the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California and the Federal Rules that apply to this action. Further, counsel should carefully read the orders that issue to ensure that further incidents of noncompliance do not occur. The Court has spent an inordinate amount of time on this action which would have been avoided had Plaintiff complied with this Court's orders.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.