Opinion
23-cv-06644-PHK
07-05-2024
ALI POORSINA, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N. A., et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE: “AMENDED COMPLAINT”
Re: Dkt. No. 30.
PETER H. KANG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court previously dismissed pro se Plaintiff Ali Poorsina's Complaint with leave to amend. [Dkt. 28]. On July 2, 2024, Plaintiff Poorsina filed a document entered in the docket as “Amended Complaint.” [Dkt. 30]. The full title of this document is “PLAINTIFF'S MOTION LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b)[.]” Id. However, this document is not an Amended Complaint and does not conform to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Rather, after carefully reviewing the document, this document is a motion or brief, because it presents legal citations and arguments in an apparent attempt to discuss why an Amended Complaint could state a claim for relief and/or why the Court's dismissal of the original Complaint was incorrect. Id.
Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff Poorsina's “Amended Complaint” as a request to file a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 7-9(a), which requires the party to request leave from the Court to file such a motion. The Court DENIES Plaintiff Poorsina's request to the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the prior dismissal because Plaintiff Poorsina was already given leave to file an amended complaint. [Dkt. 28]. The “Amended Complaint” is not a properly presented Amended Complaint (if that was Plaintiff's intention). Plaintiff Poorsina is given thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file a properly presented and formatted amended complaint, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7 and 8 (and the Local Rules of this Court), which alleges facts that would cure the deficiencies outlined in this Court's pervious Order dismissing Plaintiff Poorsina's initial complaint without prejudice. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of the case with prejudice. Plaintiff is reminded of the resources available to pro se litigants, identified by the Court in the previous dismissal Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.