Smith v. Mahoney et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Motions terminated: re 6 MOTION Compulsory Joinder-Plaintiffs & Defendants [FRCP19(a)] filed by Brandon L. Smith. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 8/22/2012. (Attachments: #(1) Certificate/Proof of Service)(kns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
BRANDON L SMITH,

No. C -12-03608 EDL

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND

11
v.
12
WILLIAM MAHONEY, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

/

Plaintiff Brandon Smith filed his complaint and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on
July 9, 2012. On July 27, 2012, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 On August 2, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis and dismissed his complaint with leave to amend. On August 15, 2012,
Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the Court now
dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend.
As stated in the Court’s August 2, 2012 Order, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is
required to dismiss an action that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Although
Plaintiff’s amended complaint contains a list of his claims, and various statements of the law
allegedly applicable to this case, the Court is unable to discern any legally cognizable claim in
Plaintiff’s complaint. The amended complaint contains less factual information than the original

26
27
28

1

To the extent that this order is dispositive, the Court does not require the consent of
Defendants because Defendants have not been served and therefore are not parties under the meaning
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Ornelas v. De Frantz, 2000 WL 973684, *2, n.2 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (citing
Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (magistrate judge had jurisdiction to dismiss
prisoner's civil rights action without consent of the defendants because the defendants had not been
served yet and therefore were not parties)).

1

complaint, which alleged conduct which took place exclusively in Massachusetts in 2007. The legal

2

authority cited by Plaintiff does not demonstrate that the Northern District of California is the proper

3

venue for this action, or that the Court would have jurisdiction over the Defendants, or that the

4

action is timely. In sum, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to include a “short and plain statement of the

5

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

6

8(a)(2). Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. Because the Court has already given Plaintiff

7

an opportunity to amend the complaint, and the amended complaint does not remedy the deficiencies

8

in the original complaint, nor does it appear that the deficiencies could be remedied, dismissal is

9

without leave to amend.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 22, 2012
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

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