Garth v. John Tennant Memorial-Episcopal Senior Communities (JTM-ESC) et al

Filing 90

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SHOW CAUSE, DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT, AND DISMISSING ACTION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/13/11. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2011)

**E-filed 12/14/11**

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9
JOHN GARTH, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN TENNANT MEMORIALEPISCOPAL SENIOR COMMUNITIES
(JTM-ESC); VINCENT CHEUNG; THE
OAK CENTER TOWERS OFFICE STAFF;
GUARDSMARK SECURITY and STAFF;
and DEFENDANT DOES 1-20,

No. C 11-00748 RS
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
SHOW CAUSE, DENYING MOTION
TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT, AND
DISMISSING ACTION

Defendants.
___________________________________/

18
19

On December 1, 2011, plaintiff John Garth, appearing pro se, filed three separate motions.

20

Two of those are styled as motions to show cause why defendants should not be “held accountable.”

21

The third motion appears to request that the Court set aside a judgment in an unlawful detainer case

22

before a California Superior Court. These three most recent filings contain substantially the same

23

content as the two complaints that were previously dismissed in this action. They are also almost

24

identical to plaintiff’s prior motion to hold defendants in criminal contempt, which was denied with

25

prejudice.

26

At the present time, there is no operative complaint in this action since Garth’s prior

27

complaint was dismissed in its entirety on November 21, 2011. (Dkt. No. 86). Although Garth was

28

granted leave to amend his Fourth Amendment and state law claims, his other claims were
NO. C 11-0748 RS
ORDER

1

dismissed with prejudice, and he did not filed an amended complaint by December 8, 2011, the

2

deadline for amendment specified in the order of dismissal. Notwithstanding plaintiff’s pro se

3

status, none of the most recent motions can be construed as an amended complaint that is responsive

4

to the prior order. Nor do they provide any discernible factual or legal basis for proceeding. The

5

factual allegations in the recent filings remain just as disorganized, conclusory, and opaque as they

6

were in Garth’s prior complaint. Without a viable complaint, plaintiff may not even continue with

7

this litigation, let alone persuade the Court to hold defendants in contempt or to put aside an

8

otherwise valid state court judgment.

9

For these reasons, Garth’s motions are denied with prejudice and the case is dismissed for
failure to prosecute. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of defendants, and the Clerk of the Court

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

is directed to close the case.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated: 12/13/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NO. C 11-0748 RS
ORDER

2