Trammell v. Prosper

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FRANK TRAMMELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
PROSPER,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-cv-03140-HSG
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Re: Dkt. No. 13
In July 2026, the Court1 granted pro se Plaintiff Frank Trammell’s application to proceed
in forma pauperis and reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Dkt.
No. 10 (the “OSC Order”). The Court concluded that the complaint failed to state a plausible
claim for relief, and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed.
Id. The Court permitted Plaintiff either to (1) explain why his complaint, as drafted, should be
allowed to proceed; or (2) amend his complaint to address the deficiencies the Court identified.
Id. However, Plaintiff neither responded to the order to show cause nor filed an amended
complaint.
Instead, after the deadline passed, Plaintiff filed a document styled as a “request for
clarification regarding required action and case management conference.” Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiff
asked for “clarif[ication] regarding what specific information, documentation or action is presently
required from [him] to address the Court’s concerns and move this case forward.” See id. But the
Court’s OSC Order already provided Plaintiff with a detailed substantive explanation of what he
needs to do, and no further clarification is necessary. See OSC Order.
1 This case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros.
Case 4:26-cv-03140-HSG Document 14 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Before Plaintiff’s request for clarification was processed and filed on the docket by the
Clerk’s Office, Judge Cisneros prepared a report and recommendation, recommending that the
case be dismissed without leave to amend, Dkt. No. 11, and the case was reassigned, Dkt. No. 12.
The report and recommendation does not address Plaintiff’s request for clarification, and Plaintiff
did not file any objections to the report.
Given the state of the case, the Court is skeptical that Plaintiff can amend the complaint to
address the deficiencies that the Court previously identified. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of
caution, the Court will grant Plaintiff two weeks to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff shall file
any amended complaint by October 30, 2026. Plaintiff is cautioned that if he fails to amend the
complaint by this deadline his case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute, in addition to
dismissal for the deficiencies the Court identified in the OSC Order. This order terminates Dkt.
No. 13.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
10/14/2026
Case 4:26-cv-03140-HSG Document 14 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 2