Opinion
No. Civ S 05-2410 FCD KJM PS.
February 2, 2006
ORDER
Defendant Pope's motion to dismiss and motion to stay came on regularly for hearing February 1, 2006. Plaintiff appeared in propria persona. Edmund J. Towle, III, appeared for defendant Pope. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Plaintiff's motion to file a third amended complaint is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the amended complaint submitted as Attachment 1 to the motion filed January 20, 2006, and to title it "Third Amended Complaint."
Plaintiff has filed four complaints in this action. Under Rule 15, plaintiff had the right to file an amended complaint once as a matter of right. Further amendment requires leave of court or stipulation of the parties. Most recently, on January 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (but did not title it as such) along with a motion for leave of court to file the third amended complaint but did not notice the motion for hearing. The court grants leave to file the third amended complaint (titled "Plaintiff's Amended Verified Complaint").
2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall effect proper service of summons and the Third Amended Complaint on defendant Pope and file proof of service with the court reflecting such service. Plaintiff is cautioned that absent proper service, the court will recommend defendant Pope's motion to dismiss be granted. Plaintiff also is reminded that under the December 1, 2005 order setting status conference, all defendants must be properly served within 120 days. Plaintiff is cautioned that all defendants must be properly served with summons and the third amended complaint no later than the date of the status conference of May 10, 2006.
3. Defendant Pope's motion to stay is denied without prejudice.
4. Plaintiff has filed numerous pleadings since commencement of this action. Many of the pleadings are not pertinent to issues before the court, are duplicative, or not properly noticed for hearing. Plaintiff's pending motions, other than the motion identified in number 1 above, accordingly are denied without prejudice subject to being properly noticed for hearing. See Local Rule 78-230.
5. The multiplicity of plaintiff's filings are a burden on both the court and defendants and impede the proper prosecution of this action. Plaintiff's future filings shall therefore be limited. Plaintiff may only file the following documents:
a. Proofs of service regarding summons;
b. One opposition to any motion filed by defendants (and clearly titled as such);
c. Only one motion pending at any time. Such motion must be properly noticed for hearing. Plaintiff is limited to one memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion and one reply to any opposition; and
d. One set of objections to any findings and recommendations.
Failure to comply with this order shall result in improperly documents being stricken from the record and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.