Harris v. The City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 85

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, FOR LACK OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 9/9/11. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2011)

**E-filed 9/12/11*

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

CHRISTINE LYNN HARRIS,

No. C 11-0803 RS
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT, FOR LACK OF
FEDERAL JURISDICTION

Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/

Plaintiff Christine Lynn Harris brought this action alleging that she has been victimized by a

19

conspiracy of persons who have stalked and harassed her through a variety of means, including

20

prank phone calls, text messages, suspicious and threatening behavior, and attacks by unseen

21

“electromagnetic radiation energy” and “directed energy weapons,” which have caused her severe

22

physical injury. As explained in the order dismissing the original complaint, federal pleading

23

standards require a plaintiff to set out factual allegations that “permit the court to infer more than the

24

mere possibility of misconduct,” and that thereby state a “plausible claim for relief.” Ashcroft v.

25

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). In amending her complaint, Harris has complied with the

26

directions in the prior order to omit voluminous evidentiary attachments (although the amended

27

complaint still refers to such materials) and has made certain changes of form in an apparent effort

28
1

1

to comply with requirement of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that a complaint

2

contain a “a short and plain statement of the claim.”

3

Substantively, however, the amended complaint includes virtually no changes from the

4

original complaint other than allegations relating to additional events (similar in nature to those

5

previously alleged) that have taken place since the time the action was filed. As such, it remains

6

highly doubtful that the complaint could be said to comply with federal pleading standards for

7

stating any type of claim against any of the named defendants.
More fundamentally, the amended complaint has done nothing to address the issue identified

8

conduct by private individuals and entities, however wrongful or egregious, does not give rise to a

11
For the Northern District of California

in the prior order that Harris has pleaded no facts sufficient to support federal jurisdiction, because

10

United States District Court

9

claim for violation of constitutional rights, absent circumstances not alleged here. Harris’s “belief”

12

that one of the persons she has seen engaging in what she perceived to be stalking or harassment

13

might have been San Francisco Police Sergeant Beazley does not support a claim that he acted under

14

color of state law to deprive Harris of any constitutional rights. Similarly, allegations regarding

15

conduct by “Raj Naicker,” who Harris speculates may be affiliated with the police department, also

16

do not support a claim of wrongful activity under the color of state law. As before, various further

17

allegations in the complaint regarding San Francisco Police officers or other authorities all relate to

18

them declining to investigate or take what Harris believes would be appropriate action in response to

19

her complaints. Harris has not shown any potential violation of her constitutional rights in the

20

exercise of discretion by the police department as to its investigatory and law enforcement duties.

21

Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction, even assuming the complaint could be liberally

22

construed as stating a claim under state law, based on any facts alleged that could be deemed to

23

describe actionable conduct, without the resort to speculation. The complaint is therefore dismissed,

24

without further leave to amend, and the Clerk shall close the file. This dismissal does not bar

25

plaintiff from pursuing any claims she may have against the private individuals named in this action,

26

or others, by an action filed under state law in state court.1

27

1

28

The Court does not suggest that the present allegations would be sufficient to state any claim
under state law pleading standards. Harris is again advised that regardless of how sincerely she may
believe that defendants have acted with bad intent, and even if they actually have done so, unless
2

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4

Dated: 9/9/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
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

she can allege facts demonstrating wrongful conduct that do not depend on speculation as to
defendants’ motives and actions, it is unlikely that she will be allowed to proceed in any court.
3