Opinion
No. CV12-0263-PHX-DGC
05-14-2012
Roger Mahuwe, Plaintiff, v. Petsmart, Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a document (Doc. 15) that appears to be his response to the Court's order requiring a more definite statement (Doc. 12) and its subsequent order requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that complies with the Court's first order (Doc. 14). The document filed by Plaintiff is not an amended complaint as directed by the Court. The Court will give Plaintiff one additional opportunity to comply with the Court's orders and file an amended complaint. If he does not, Plaintiff is warned that this case will be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
The document filed by Plaintiff is titled "Reply in Support of More Definite Statement." Doc. 15. That is not the document Plaintiff must file. Rather, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint (amending the document he first filed in this cases titled "Complaint"). The amended complaint must comply with the Court's order of April 9, 2012 (Doc. 12). Specifically, Plaintiff's amended complaint must include (1) numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph limited to a single allegation or issue, (2) state the basis for the Court's jurisdiction over this case, (3) set forth factual detail in support of his claim, such as the detail contained in the written statement attached to his original complaint, (4) set forth the legal basis for his claim (the statute or common law under which he is making a claim), and (5) identify the relief he seeks in this case.
Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by June 1, 2012. Plaintiff is again warned that if he fails to comply with this requirement, the Court will dismiss this case for failure to comply with the Court's orders and for failure to prosecute.
______________________
David G. Campbell
United States District Judge