Roe v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 91

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT SANG JUN re 90 Order on Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Alsup on August 9, 2012. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 10-04768 WHA
MANUEL FRANCO,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER DISMISSING
DEFENDANT
SANG JUN

v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, San Francisco
Chiefs of Police HEATHER FONG and GEORGE GASCON,
SANDRA C. JACQUEZ FLORES, CHRISTOPHER
MERINDINO, BRIAN GINN, MARIO MOLINA, JOSEPH
L. FORD, DANIEL H. BUTLER, ELIZABETH A.
WICKMAN, KENNETH KARCH, EMJOHN V. PASCUA,
MICHAEL J. KLINKE, JOHN S. POSUSNEY, DAVID S.
PARNELL, TSENG CHOW, AMY POLING, GEORGE
DOBBERSTEIN, CHRISTINE LASCALZO, KRISTINE
CARTER, FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, NICOLAS T. FORST,
MARK HAMMELL, SANG JUN, GREGORY A. JENKINS,
CHRISTINE LOSCALZO, BEN HORTON, SCOTT LAU,
JOHN CAGNEY, TOM NOOLAN, and DEFENDANT
DOES 1–40,
Defendants.
/

By order dated July 23, 2012, plaintiff was ordered to show cause why defendant Sang

25

Jun, the only defendant who did not move for dismissal, should not be dismissed from this action

26

for the reasons stated in the dismissal order and the order denying the motion for leave to amend.

27

Plaintiff failed to respond. Because the reasons in the dismissal order and the order

28

1

denying the motion for leave to amend apply equally to defendant Sang Jun, he is hereby

2

DISMISSED from this action. The Heck-barred claims (as set forth in the order of dismissal)

3

raised against defendant are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: August 9, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2