Williams v. State of California, No. 1:2009cv01675 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER VACATING September 29, 2009 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff Leave to File Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/9/2009. Amended Complaint due by 12/14/2009. (Sondheim, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. State of California Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 LANA K. WILLIAMS, 9 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 13 14 Defendants. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09cv1675 OWW DLB ORDER VACATING SEPTEMBER 29, 2009, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION (Document 5) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 Plaintiff, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant action on September 22, 17 2009. She named the State of California as a defendant. On September 29, 2009, the Court 18 issued findings and recommendations that the action be dismissed without leave to amend based 19 on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds. 20 On October 26, 2009, Plaintiff submitted objections to the Findings and 21 Recommendation.1 By her objections, Plaintiff attempts, among other things, to name additional 22 defendants by adding them to the caption, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, 23 Controller John Chiang, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown and the Internal Revenue Service, 24 and to add additional claims, including allegations regarding the raid of her animals and assault 25 by police officers. The Court construes these “objections” as a request to amend the complaint. 26 Accordingly, the Court VACATES the September 29, 2009, Findings and Recommendation. 27 28 1 On October 26, 2009, Plaintiff also filed a motion for new judge and change of venue. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Amended Complaint 2 In order to adequately review whether Plaintiff can state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3 1915(e)(2) as to the additional defendants and allegations, Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to 4 amend her complaint. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff 5 shall file an amended complaint. 6 Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without 7 reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint 8 supercedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once 9 Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the 10 11 case. Plaintiff’s complaint should be clearly titled, “First Amended Complaint,” and shall refer to 12 the case number assigned to this action. It must contain a short and plain statement of her claims 13 and must clearly set forth the causes of action alleged against each Defendant. If Plaintiff fails to 14 file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the Court will recommend that this 15 action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 16 Plaintiff is further cautioned that she should assert only claims that she believes are 17 cognizable. The Court notes that Plaintiff has already attempted to bring two previous actions 18 based, at least in part, on the allegations included in her complaint and “objections” regarding an 19 accounting of her inheritance and her father’s estate.2 Those prior actions were dismissed without 20 leave to amend in June 2004 and in November 2007. In setting forth the reasons why she could 21 not state a claim in those cases, the Court explained that federal courts have no probate 22 jurisdiction. Additionally, in one of the cases, the Court explained that Eleventh Amendment 23 immunity bars actions against the State and state agencies. 24 Despite the Court’s prior explanations as to why her allegations failed, Plaintiff has again 25 filed a similar action. Although her complaint now contains more Defendants and additional 26 claims for relief, it also contains the claims that the Court previously disposed of. If Plaintiff 27 2 28 Williams v. Madera Municipal Court, et al., 1:04cv5414 OWW LJO and Williams, et al. v. Moffat, et al., 1:07cv0953 OWW BAK. 2 1 continues to allege such claims, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed for 2 Plaintiff’s failure to follow the Court’s orders. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a November 9, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
