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)

Download PDF
**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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?