Critchfield v. Preston Pipelines Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 JAMES CRITCHFIELD, Case No. 20-cv-02981-LB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 PRESTON PIPELINES INC., et al., Re: ECF No. 42 15 Defendants. 16 17 The court previously dismissed Mr. Critchfield’s complaint with leave to amend because he 18 did not properly serve the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and he did not 19 plausibly state a claim for employment discrimination.1 The court extended Mr. Critchfield until 20 September 24, 2020, to file an amended complaint when he missed the initial deadline to amend 21 by August 27, 2020. The court warned that the failure to file an amended complaint may result in a 22 dismissal of the case.2 23 24 25 26 27 1 Order – ECF No. 28. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 1 Mr. Critchfield filed an amended complaint on September 17, 2020.7 The defendants moved to 2 || dismiss because the amended complaint is improper and did not cure the previously identified 3 deficiencies.* The court agrees. 4 The amended complaint alleges only that Mr. Critchfield believes he “ha[s] complied with the 5 court orders.”° It also attaches a certificate of service showing that Mr. Critchfield served the 6 defendants by mail.° For the reasons stated in the court’s previous order, this method of service is 7 improper.’ In any event, the amended complaint contains no claims or factual allegations in 8 support of any claim. This fails the pleadings standard for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a 9 || complaint must contain a “short and plaint statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 10 entitled to relief’); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (a complaint must give 11 the defendant “fair notice” of what the claims are and the grounds upon which they rest) (cleaned 12 || up). 13 Accordingly, the court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Given Mr. Critchfield’s prior v 14 || opportunities to amend and failure to cure the identified deficiencies in his complaint, the court 15 dismisses the amended complaint without leave to amend. Cf. Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotel, 726 Q 16 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming denial of leave to amend where “plaintiffs have had & = 17 ample opportunity to properly plead a case and have failed to do so’). 3 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: October 23, 2020 Li EC 21 LAUREL BEELER 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 |) 3 Am. Compl. — ECF No. 37. 25 4 Mot. — ECF No. 42. > Am. Compl. -ECF No. 37 at 2. 26 ° Id. at 8. The certificate of service states that Mr. Critchfield served a “reply brief in support of 7 motion” to the defendants. This appears to be an error due to the fact that Mr. Critchfield wrote his amended complaint on the standard court form for reply briefs. 28 || ’ Order — ECF No. 28 at 4-5.